Get a sequence email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only "Reads account data," which is redundant with readOnlyHint and unclear about what account data actually means here. No return shape, permission, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded and free of padding, but the second sentence earns no place — it conveys neither behavior nor usage. The brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more burden, yet it never indicates what a returned sequence email contains or what `include` does. For a 4-parameter fetch tool with a hidden optional parameter, this leaves meaningful gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 is 75%, below the 80% baseline, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not. The undocumented `include` parameter (likely controlling what related data is expanded) is never explained, despite being the one parameter whose semantics are not self-evident. email_id and sequence_id are already described adequately in the schema.

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?

"Get a sequence email" is a verbatim restatement of the title, adding no scope or specificity beyond the name. It does not distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings such as list_sequence_emails, get_sequence, or get_email_stats. The second sentence ("Reads account data") is ambiguous about whether it fetches account data or an email belonging to a sequence, muddying rather than clarifying the purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named even though list_sequence_emails (bulk) and get_sequence (parent) are obvious adjacent choices. An agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch from the tool name alone.

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