Get Bounce Dump

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

The description adds the specific detail that the tool returns the raw SMTP dump, which goes slightly beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as output size, encoding, or whether the dump includes full headers. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, the description does not need to restate these, but it adds limited extra context.

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, clearly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition, making it optimally concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter), strong annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It fully communicates what the tool returns (raw SMTP dump) without needing to explain return values, since the output schema covers that.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter bounce_id ('Numeric bounce ID'). The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'raw SMTP source/dump' of a single bounce. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bounce (likely parsed bounce data) and list_bounces (multiple bounces).

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies usage when raw SMTP is needed, but it does not state how this relates to get_bounce or when to prefer one over the other. This is implied but not clearly stated.

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