list_mailings

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and mentions pagination behavior via the older_than parameter. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers safety (no destruction) and pagination, though it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 very concise, with a one-line summary followed by bullet points for each parameter. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers parameters and read-only nature. However, it omits details like default sorting order, page size, or how to get the next page (beyond the cursor). It is adequate but could be more complete for a listing operation.

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?

All three parameters are thoroughly explained beyond the schema: scanbox_id has an example, current_status lists valid enum values, and older_than explains pagination logic. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'List' and resource 'mailings in a scanbox', specifying the HTTP endpoint and read-only nature. It distinguishes from siblings like list_recipients or get_mailing by focusing on mailings within a specific scanbox.

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 for when to use this tool (listing mailings in a scanbox), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_mailing for a single mailing. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the resource name.

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