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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns a mailbox with `id` and `inboundAddress`, requires the user to perform manual forwarding, and may be blocked by an external-forwarding admin policy. It stops short of stating authentication/authorization requirements, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded correctly: purpose, the Gmail alternative, and the return/follow-up behavior come before the provider instructions. The trailing Gmail/Outlook menu-path detail is verbose but each step is actionable and non-redundant, so it earns its length, though the block could be tightened.

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 output schema, the description carries the return contract (mailbox `id` and `inboundAddress`) and the required next step (send_forwarding_test), plus prerequisite workflows for both Gmail and Microsoft 365. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents supportAddress and displayName fully. The description implies the address the customer emails but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema — 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?

States a concrete action and resource — setting up Aide on the address customers email at (e.g. support@example.com) — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling connect_integration with a Gmail inbox. An agent can tell what this does and when it is not the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: prefer connect_integration with `gmail` for Gmail/Workspace instead of forwarding, otherwise use this tool. It also sequences the workflow (call send_forwarding_test afterwards, use get_support_email for the confirmation code), and includes provider-specific prerequisites including the Microsoft 365 admin caveat.

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