get_executions_by_email

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 read-only nature, side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or return format. The description is too minimal for a search tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with 13 words, free of extraneous information. It efficiently states the core purpose without redundancies.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain return values, pagination (limit), trace inclusion (includeFullTrace), and required permissions.

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 schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'email address', 'source', and 'date range' but does not explain the format or semantics of parameters like startDate, endDate, limit, or includeFullTrace. Only emailAddress is partially clarified.

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?

The description clearly states the action (Find), the resource (SubscriberViaAPI executions), and the primary filter (by email address). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_execution_trace and get_recent_errors by specifying a unique filtering criterion.

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?

The description implies usage when needing executions by email, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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