List aliases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the page-size/pagination convention, which the schema largely mirrors, and says nothing about result ordering, total counts, or behavior past the last page.

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 front-loads the core action and page size, then layers pagination and filtering in descending order of importance. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.

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 read-only, no-required-param list tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description supplies scoping, pagination, and filter semantics. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description never characterizes the returned alias objects, which an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the enum values and the zero-based page semantics. The description restates the same meanings (query fields, filter states, page start) without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's SimpleLogin email aliases'), which cleanly separates it from alias_domains_list, mailbox_list, and alias_activity_list by resource. It never contrasts itself with alias_get (single alias) or notes the list-vs-single distinction, so full sibling differentiation is not achieved.

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?

Gives clear operating context: pagination via page_id starting at 0, 20 per page, and optional filtering by enabled/disabled/pinned or free-text search. It does not state when to prefer alias_get instead, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so it stops short of the top score.

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