Get mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently lists the exact return fields and explains the password strength scale, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., 404 for unknown address), authorization requirements, or any side effects, which for a get tool is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the key return fields without fluff. Every word 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?

Given the simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers the return fields comprehensively, including value interpretation for password strength. It doesn't describe error behavior, but for a straightforward get operation, the description is largely sufficient. A slightly higher score is held back by the missing edge-case context.

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 already describes the only parameter 'address' with examples, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with 'Get a single mailbox's info', which clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (a single mailbox), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes by emphasizing 'single'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving details on one mailbox, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_mailboxes or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It provides no exclusionary guidance, so usage is only implied from the word 'single'.

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