List conversation inboxes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation ('Fetch'). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the scope of inboxes and the existence of filters/sorting, but does not disclose pagination details or response structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It is 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 list tool with 4 optional parameters (fully documented in schema), no required parameters, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention response pagination, but the schema covers the 'after' cursor, so the information is available.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (sort, after, limit, is_archived). The description's mention of 'optional filters and sorting' reinforces these but adds no extra semantic detail. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'conversation inboxes (shared inboxes and help desks)' with optional filters and sorting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GetInboxDetails (getting a single inbox) and ListConversationChannels (listing channels).

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 provides clear context that this is for listing conversation inboxes and customizing results with filters/sorting, implying its use for enumeration tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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