Search Mail Queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint; the description's "None (read-only)" simply restates that. It adds no new behavioral context such as pagination limits, result caps, or engine-side filtering quirks.

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?

Two compact bolded sections with the endpoint and filters front-loaded. Every sentence carries information and there is no 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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and side effects adequately. It omits sibling disambiguation and any indication of what the search returns, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role in the queue tool family.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters fully, making 3 the baseline. The description lists filter names but uses different casing (clientIp, sessionId) than the schema, adding no real meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search mail queue) and names the underlying endpoint plus its optional filter fields, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish it from the sibling fortimail.queue.list, which an agent would need to disambiguate between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus fortimail.queue.list, queue.view, or queue.download. Filters are listed but no condition or scenario selects this tool over its siblings.

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