get_email_security_message_detections

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Get', with no disclosure of output shape, pagination, ordering, error behavior, or whether the call is read-only. An agent has no behavioral expectations beyond the verb.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently useful. Every word restates the tool name, so the single sentence does not earn its place by adding information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out what the tool returns, how detections are represented, and how account_id and postfix_id identify the message. The two required parameters are documented, but the overall invocation context is inadequately described for a tool with this many close siblings.

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% and both parameters have basic descriptions ('The account ID', 'The message postfix ID'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already covers the parameter meaning, 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 'Get email security message detections' is a bare restatement of the tool name with underscores replaced by spaces; it does not define what 'detections' are or what a 'message detection' represents. It gives no conceptual clarification beyond the name itself and does not distinguish it from similar email security tools.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With siblings such as get_email_security_message and list_email_security_investigate, the agent is given no criteria to choose this tool over those.

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