get_deliverability_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, not any side effects, required permissions (beyond apiKey), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. 'Get' implies read but is not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a parenthetical note (plan feature) front-load all essential information without extraneous content. Every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return content. It could mention that results are in JSON or that the tool requires an authenticated workspace, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage of the single `apiKey` parameter is 100% as the schema description already explains its purpose (overriding env var). The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves a workspace-level deliverability summary including sending reputation, domain authentication status, and bounce/complaint health. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_domain_health which focuses on individual domain health. The verb 'Get' and resource 'deliverability summary' are specific.

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?

No explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'Deliverability Hub plan feature' indicating a prerequisite, but no comparison with similar siblings (e.g., check_domain_health, get_workspace_usage) or 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.