infomaniak_list_mail_hostings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds that it lists 'every' mail hosting, implying a complete fetch. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., return format, pagination) are disclosed beyond what annotations cover, but no contradiction exists.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the purpose and the optional parameter's default behavior. Every sentence is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential points: what is returned (mail hostings) and the parameter semantics. It could mention that the list is complete, but that is implicit from 'list every'.

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 schema documents account_id with a description, and the description clarifies that it is optional and defaults to the first account the token can access. It also suggests using infomaniak_overview to discover the ID, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'mail hosting (a.k.a. email_hosting)', clearly indicating it returns all mail hostings for an organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_hostings (shared hosting) and infomaniak_list_mailboxes.

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?

The description states the tool lists mail hostings and notes that the account_id parameter is optional, defaulting to the first accessible account. It recommends using infomaniak_overview to discover the account ID, providing usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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