Get sent email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that the rendered body is not exposed via the API, which is a meaningful behavioral limitation not captured by annotations. It also lists the returned data fields.

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, information-dense sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple 1-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields, states the tool is for one sent email, and discloses the body limitation. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides a full description of the only parameter (email_id: Email UUID) at 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get delivery details for one sent email.' It enumerates the exact fields returned (recipient, subject, sent/bounced state, error/bounce data), distinguishing it from sibling names like list_email_history and resend_email.

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 specifies it is for a single sent email, providing clear context for when to use it (when you need details for one email). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude them, but the singular focus and explicit use case give adequate guidance.

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