List EVE mail

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds genuine value: it discloses that only headers are returned (not bodies) and enumerates the header fields (sender/recipient names, labels, read state). It omits pagination behavior and the default-25 cap, which are left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the return-content scoping front-loaded and the alternative named afterward. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the header fields returned. Pagination and the limit default are left implicit, a minor gap for a read-only listing tool.

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 coverage is 75%, just under the threshold where the schema alone suffices. The description adds no parameter guidance and does nothing to compensate for the undocumented unread_only flag, though label/limit/character are well described in the 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?

States the specific resource (EVE mail) and scope (headers, recent) plus what each header contains, and explicitly routes body retrieval to mail_read. An agent can distinguish it from mail_read and mail_send without opening any schema.

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?

'Use mail_read for bodies' names the alternative and the condition selecting it. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond that, but the header-vs-body split covers the main decision point.

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