fcrm contact emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the authorization requirement and the policy that enforces it, which an agent needs before calling. It stops short of describing pagination metadata or result ordering, hence not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the optional mode, then the permission requirement — nothing is buried. The trailing policy-implementation note ("Enforced by SubscriberPolicy::verifyRequest()") is somewhat internal and could be trimmed, which keeps this from a 5.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, filtering, mode switching and authorization. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here since the description states the returned entity (emails) and that results are paginated, though item shape and paging metadata remain unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (id, tab, page, filter, account, per_page) is already documented with types, defaults, enums and ranges. The description reinforces the tab and filter semantics but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a paginated list of emails sent to a contact") and scopes it to a single contact, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It also names the two modes (CRM campaign emails vs. FluentSMTP logs), which no sibling tool provides, so the tool is unambiguous within this server.

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?

It gives the condition for the alternate mode ("when the `tab` parameter is set to `fluentsmtp`") and states the required capability (`fcrm_read_contacts` or `fcrm_manage_contacts`), which is genuine prerequisite guidance. It does not contrast against neighbors like `fcrm_get_contact` or `fcrm_contact_notes`, but those are clearly different resources, so the omission is minor.

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