Get inbox details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, error handling, or permissions. Since the annotation covers the main safety aspect, the description is acceptable but does not go beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, clear sentence of 12 words, with the key action ('Retrieve detailed information') front-loaded. There is no redundancy, filler, or repetition of the title. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the resource and the parameter. The phrase 'detailed information' is somewhat vague in terms of what fields will be returned, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description provides adequate context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter inbox_id ('The unique identifier for the conversation inbox you wish to retrieve details for'). With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific conversation inbox by its ID.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('conversation inbox'), and the phrase 'by its ID' aligns with the required parameter. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ListConversationInboxes, but the word 'specific' conveys single-item retrieval, making the purpose 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 implies when to use the tool—when you have an inbox ID and need detailed information—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ListConversationInboxes for enumeration). No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, so usage context is only implied, not stated.

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