get_delivery_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether pagination is supported, time range constraints, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise two-line summary followed by parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be more integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequately covers purpose and filtering parameters. Lacks information on output format, ordering, pagination, or time range. However, an output schema exists (not shown), so return values are not required in the description. Still, behavioral details are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing explicit enum values for event_type (sent, delivered, bounced, complained, failed) and the default for limit. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool retrieves delivery event logs for specific event types (sent, delivered, bounced, complained, failed). The description differentiates from siblings like get_deliverability_stats (aggregated stats) by specifying individual email lifecycle tracking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear use cases: tracking lifecycle of individual emails or auditing delivery across an inbox. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.