get_mass_marketing_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it gets configuration without mentioning side effects, permissions, or output format. The '[query]' suffix is ambiguous and does not clarify behavior.

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 but includes an unnecessary '[query]' tag that may confuse the agent. It is concise but could be cleaner without the tag.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return structure. It lists fields but not their format (e.g., JSON object). For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, more detail on output is needed for complete agent understanding.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline score 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 it retrieves mass marketing configuration and lists specific fields (auto-response, unsubscribe text, approval). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'save_mass_marketing_config' which is the write counterpart.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus others. Usage is implied (to get current config), but no when-not or alternatives are provided. The presence of a save sibling suggests a read context, but not stated.

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