Get this app's email inbox address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious email-to-event behavior (mail sent to the address becomes an email.received event) and states the return value, while implying a read-only operation by 'Returns'. It does not cover edge cases like no apps configured, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the inbox model, then the concrete return, then the quickstart fallback. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains the returned concept (address plus webhook URL) and provides the address pattern and event type. A minor gap is the lack of the exact response field names/shape, but this is not critical for invocation.

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?

Both parameters are already documented in the schema with high coverage (app slug source and default, api_key usage over HTTP vs stdio), so the description need not repeat them. It adds the conceptual link that an app's inbox address is derived from the app, but no additional parameter syntax.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('the address and webhook URL for one of your apps') and grounds it in a clear model (every app is an email inbox at {user}.{app}@anyhook.net). This differentiates it from siblings like anyhook_events, which reads generated events, and anyhook_quickstart, which provisions an account.

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?

It explicitly routes agents without an account to anyhook_quickstart ('No account yet? anyhook_quickstart returns an inbox_address directly') and points to anyhook_events for reading the resulting email.received events. This is enough for an agent to choose between this and the nearby alternatives.

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