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

The description discloses the core behavior (connect and authenticate) and adds the use-case context, but annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It does not mention potential side effects, security implications, or what happens on success/failure. It exceeds a bare minimum but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, error messages). This is a meaningful gap for a connection-test tool where the output is central to the caller.

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 all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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 ('Test') with a clear resource ('IMAP server connection') and method ('attempting to connect and authenticate'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like smtp_check and imap_finder by focusing on connection verification.

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 states the primary use case: 'verify email receiving configuration.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions.

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