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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default filtering behavior (inactive replies excluded unless flagged) and that results come back in the replies' defined order.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the filtering caveat last. The opening line merely repeats the tool title, which is the one bit of waste.

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?

A read-only two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations needs little prose. The description covers scope, ordering, and the inactive-filter default; it does not sketch the shape of returned replies, though no output schema exists to carry 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents agent_id error codes (404/403) and the include_inactive boolean. The description only restates the include_inactive default behavior and adds the ordering note, which is a marginal increment over structured data.

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 specific verb and resource scoped to one agent: listing that agent's saved replies. The list verb and the 'inbox composer shortcuts' gloss make it distinguishable from create_saved_reply and replace_saved_reply without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is conditional on a parameter: 'Switched-off ones only with `include_inactive=true`.' There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus create_saved_reply or replace_saved_reply, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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