school_mail_status

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

The annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, but the description adds real value with two non-obvious behavioral facts: it is purely local (no network) and it will not echo credentials. There is mild tension between 'no network' and openWorldHint=true, and no mention of what 'ready' means or how failures are reported; with annotations covering the safety profile, 3 fits.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by two boundary clauses. Every fragment earns its place with zero filler.

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 status tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the essentials: scope, locality, and credential safety. It would be complete at 5 if it clarified what constitutes 'ready' or pointed to school_mail_setup_guide when configuration is not ready.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific check ('check local mailbox configuration readiness') with a clear resource, and the 'no network' clause implicitly separates it from school_mail_check_connection. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Does not connect to network' suggests this is the pre-flight/diagnostic step to run before school_mail_check_connection, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what to do on failure (e.g., hand off to school_mail_setup_guide). Usage is implied only.

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