exchange_list_mailboxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It reveals the admin scope and optional filter/recipient-type support but says nothing about permissions, result size limits, pagination, or whether it returns a summary vs full objects. This is minimal for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Extra context is limited but every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't state return shape, error behavior, or the effect of resultSize. The admin qualifier and supported filters are useful, but an agent would still be guessing about several invocation details.

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 description calls out filter and RecipientTypeDetails, mirroring two of the three schema parameters, but uses a different term ('RecipientTypeDetails' vs 'recipientType') and adds no meaning beyond the schema. It omits resultSize entirely, so the 67% schema coverage gap is not closed.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('List mailboxes') and signals an administrative scope, distinguishing it from single-mailbox get/set operations among siblings. It does not enumerate what is returned, but purpose is unambiguous.

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 says the tool lists mailboxes for admins but gives no guidance on when to choose it over exchange_get_mailbox or the other list_* siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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