Get Inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cross-account aggregation behavior and the empty-account_id mode, but omits the read-only safety profile, pagination/limit behavior, and how campaign_id/unread_only alter results.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, sentences two and three both restate the same unified-queue convenience, and the "eight client accounts" framing reads as promotional filler rather than actionable 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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained here, which the description correctly omits. Still, with no annotations and three of four parameters undocumented, the definition leaves meaningful filtering and safety context unstated.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates for only one: account_id (empty → all accounts). limit, campaign_id, and unread_only remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

"Read the unified inbox across every connected account" is a specific verb + resource and communicates the cross-account scope clearly. It does not name the closest sibling (get_conversation) to distinguish listing the inbox from reading a single thread, 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?

"Leave account_id empty to see everything in one queue" plus the daily-reply-pass scenario give clear context for when to reach for this tool. There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_conversation), which keeps it short of a 5.

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