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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, closed-world operation, keeping the bar low. The description adds meaningful context by stating it requires the organization API key and is scoped to the buyer, but says nothing about what the inbox returns or how the status filter behaves on the response side.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the auth constraint. Every sentence 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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on return fields would have been ideal, but this is a minor gap.

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 sole status parameter and its enum values are fully documented. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly identifies the resource (supplier submissions) and the filtering condition (waiting for your decision as the buyer), which distinguishes it from the submission and decision siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', leaving the exact operation implied by the title 'inbox'.

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?

It establishes the buyer role and the API key requirement, giving useful context for when this tool applies. However, it never names the natural next-step sibling (supplier_proof_decide) or states when not to use it versus alternatives, leaving that inference to the agent.

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