Get Bounce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the fact that it returns a 'full detail record,' which is modestly useful context. No additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or rate limits are 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource ('full detail record'). Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the core purpose. Though usage guidance is limited, the overall definition is adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter bounce_id as a 'Numeric bounce ID,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's mention of 'single bounce' only implies that the ID identifies which bounce, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is clear and specific: 'Get the full detail record for a single bounce.' It uses a precise verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('bounce'), and clarifies scope ('single bounce'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bounces or get_bounce_dump.

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 phrase 'single bounce' implies this tool is for retrieving one specific bounce when you have its ID, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_bounces, get_bounce_dump, or activate_bounce, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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