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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the default 10-minute TTL, auto-expiry/reaping, persistent alternative, the 86400s cap, owner scoping, and the 25-box quota. These are non-obvious operational constraints an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the primary action and address format come first, followed by TTL options and the read workflow. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the accumulated detail makes it heavier than a strictly minimal definition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape {id, address, expires_at}. Combined with the TTL, quota, and downstream read path, an agent has everything needed to provision and then use the box correctly.

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 each parameter thoroughly. The description reinforces the defaults (ephemeral, 10-minute TTL, persistent alternative) but adds no syntax or nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Mint') and resource (a real disposable inbox at agent-<hex>@mosadd.com) with the send/receive capability spelled out. This is distinguishable from siblings like mAYL_agentbox_extend or mAYL_agentbox_list, which operate on existing boxes.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: mint the box, then use mAYL_list (filtered by address) plus mAYL_view to read arrivals. It doesn't mention the sibling lifecycle tools extend/release, so it stops short of a fully exhaustive when-to-use map, but the primary usage path is clear.

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