Apple Suggest Mailboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing the tool as a fallback completion surface and noting dependence on 'current Apple data surfaces,' which implies results may reflect current system state.

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 short, with only two sentences and no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful usage context, though the first sentence is somewhat repetitive of the tool title.

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 simple tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and fallback role. However, it lacks parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, leaving some context for an agent to infer.

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%, and the description gives no guidance on 'query' or 'limit.' While parameter names and defaults are visible, the description does not explain matching behavior, the string variant of limit, or how query interacts with suggestions.

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 ('suggest') and resource ('mailboxes'), and adds that it uses 'current Apple data surfaces.' It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling tools like mail_list_mailboxes, though the 'completion fallback' phrase provides some differentiation.

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?

It clearly identifies a use case: 'completion fallback for clients without MCP completion support.' However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as mail_list_mailboxes or other suggest_* tools, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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