infomaniak_get_mail_preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping context of 'service-level' (as opposed to mailbox-level), which is useful but doesn't elaborate on return format, pagination, or included preferences. It aligns with the annotations, adding a small amount of behavioral context beyond them.

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 gets straight to the point. No filler words, no repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loaded with the action.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling mail tools, but the resource is specific enough. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. Overall, it's nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 one parameter (mail_hosting_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description mentions 'for a mail hosting', which provides a weak hint that the parameter is the hosting ID, but it doesn't explain how to obtain it, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum. This fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('service-level mail preferences for a mail hosting'). It distinguishes from mailbox-level tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource is precise enough to understand the tool's core function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like infomaniak_get_mail_hosting_full or get_mailbox_info. It doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where this read would be appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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