infomaniak_get_mail_hosting_full

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about returned data (MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC health check, quotas) and access restrictions, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most important information, and every word adds value. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 existence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it contains, and when to use it. No significant gaps are apparent for a simple one-parameter getter.

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 input schema has 100% coverage; the parameter description explains what mail_hosting_id is and how to discover it. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns 'Full mail hosting detail' and enumerates specific content (diagnostic_dns, quotas, admin user, etc.), distinguishing it from list_mail_hostings and other mailbox-specific tools. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource scope is explicit.

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 a clear use case ('Use this for mail-config sanity checks') and notes access level ('Manager-private'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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