list_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds a useful security note that messages are untrusted content, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, auth, or what the listing returns.

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 short and front-loads the resource plus a security caveat, so it is not bloated. However, it is composed of two fragments with no explicit verb or structure, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It gives content examples and an untrusted-content warning but omits return format, pagination behavior, and sibling routing.

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 schema has page and per_page parameters with zero description coverage, and the description mentions neither parameter, so an agent gets no semantics for pagination defaults or limits. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema 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 identifies the resource as conversations, including inquiries, orders, and Vinted notices, but is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb/resource statement. It does not clearly distinguish list_inbox from get_conversation or from siblings covering orders and notices.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_inbox versus get_conversation, list_orders, list_notifications, or search. The only usage hint is implied by the name and parenthetical examples.

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