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

The `readOnlyHint: true` annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the returned fields and the underlying API endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether all inboxes are returned.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the API endpoint as supporting detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context by naming the returned fields and the API endpoint. A minor gap is the absence of pagination or result-size details, but overall it is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully described, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the inboxes,' and specifies the returned fields (id, name, disabled state). It is clearly a listing operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `gladly_get_inbox` for single-inbox retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and simple list operation, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus `gladly_get_inbox` or any other alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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