get_email_event_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns ALL SES event types, which signals the full delivery timeline rather than a summary or recent send metadata.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and target; the second lists the return contents. The key scoping detail ('for a specific email by its messageId') is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose and return contents. Minor omissions like ordering/pagination are not critical given the annotations and output schema handle the behavioral context.

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%: the messageId parameter is fully documented as an SES message id returned by send_email or list_recent_sends. The description just restates 'by messageId' without adding semantic detail, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full delivery event log for a specific email'), and a precise identifier ('messageId'). It also enumerates the returned event types (Send, Delivery, Bounce, Complaint, Open, Click), which makes its function unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like list_recent_sends or send_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 makes the use case clear: retrieving the complete event history for one email when a messageId is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is concrete enough that an agent can correctly select it over the sibling list/reply/setup tools.

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