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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only names the sources and does not clarify side effects such as whether messages are removed or marked as collected, whether authorization is required, or what the return value looks like. The 'all' parameter hints at a collected state, but the description itself does not explain this.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when messages are collected (e.g., whether they are deleted, returned, or marked as read) or how the 'all' parameter alters behavior. Users are left without critical information about the tool's outcome.

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 schema covers both parameters (id and all), but the description adds meaningful context by clarifying that 'id' refers to one of the listed source types (inbox, bin, front door, form), which the schema's generic 'resource id' does not convey. This helps map parameters to real-world usage.

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 ('collect') and resource ('buffered messages'), and lists the source types (inbox, bin, front door, form), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like queue_lease or attested_fetch. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have an inbox, bin, front door, or form with buffered messages) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tools might be preferred. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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