infomaniak_get_mail_hosting_full

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds the 'Manager-private' qualifier, indicating authorization requirements beyond annotations. It accurately describes the return content without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences only: first immediately lists key fields; second gives clear usage hint. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no description. The description covers all key fields (DNS health, quotas, admin, etc.) and parameter is well-documented in schema. Complete for a read-only single-resource tool.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter description already guides discovery via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings. The tool description adds no further semantic value for the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Full mail hosting detail' and enumerates specific fields (diagnostic_dns health check, quotas, admin user, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like infomaniak_get_mailbox_full (single mailbox) and infomaniak_list_mail_hostings (list only).

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 states 'Use this for mail-config sanity checks' and includes 'Manager-private' hinting at access restrictions. The parameter description advises discovery via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use.

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