List mail forwarders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that each forwarder's target address is included in the result, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or ordering, which matters given the page/limit parameters.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

With an output schema, fully documented parameters, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of any hint about pagination or filtering strategy, which an agent would otherwise have to infer from the schema alone.

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%, including the vserver hint and the page/limit ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it doesn't say how the 'address' filter matches (local part vs full alias).

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 and resource ('List the e-mail forwarders (aliases) on a webhosting') and clarifies the returned content ('where each one forwards to'), which separates it from list_mail_accounts and the create/update/delete_mail_forwarder siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 read-only listing intent is implied by 'List', and the mention of 'a webhosting' implies it is scoped per virtual server. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to create_mail_forwarder/update_mail_forwarder for mutations, and no note about paginating when results are large.

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