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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pagination limit (up to 100), ordering (newest first), and the critical behavior that disabled addresses remain listed with readable history. These are valuable behavioral insights beyond the schema. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds two important behavioral details without redundancy. No wasted words; every piece of information earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it lists, ordering, limit, and disabled-address behavior. The only minor gap is that 'addresses' could be ambiguous (bare email strings vs. inbox objects with IDs), but given the tool name and context, this is likely clear to the agent. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter organization_id has a description ('Active organization ID'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'this organization'. The schema already documents the parameter, so the description does not need to repeat it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('addresses this organization receives on'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like inbox_get (single inbox), inbox_messages (messages), and inbox_disable (disable). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 clearly states what the tool does, which implicitly defines its use case (listing all inbound addresses for an organization). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to call it. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' is a minor gap.

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