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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value: the output is markdown meant to be relayed verbatim, and critically it 'contains no passwords or keys', which reassures the agent about safe forwarding.

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 content is dense and front-loaded – audience, contents list, and purpose come before the delivery instruction. It is slightly long, but nearly every clause (contents enumerated, no-credentials guarantee) carries information an agent needs.

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 fully carries the burden by describing both the content of the return value and its format (markdown). Nothing an agent needs to call and use this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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+resource (produces a plain-language setup summary) with explicit scope: each domain's live status, mailboxes, webmail link, IMAP/SMTP settings, remaining tasks. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_account_summary by its human-facing, onboarding-oriented framing.

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 clear context: 'show or send to them as-is when you finish setting something up' tells the agent the moment to invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast with get_account_summary or list_domains, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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