infomaniak_get_newsletter_admin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'read-only' statement adds limited new behavioral insight. It does not disclose additional traits such as authentication requirements or response behavior, but it does not contradict 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?

The description is two clear sentences, front-loaded with an action verb, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and a high-level description covering all action categories, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only domain is described). The description partially compensates by mapping the action enum values to high-level inventory types (groups, subscribers, count-status), but it does not explain the group or subscriber parameter forms or per-action details fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the exact resources it covers: newsletter groups, group subscribers, subscriber inventory, and count-status summaries for a domain. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from its manage counterpart by labeling it read-only admin inventory.

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 clearly communicates read-only inspection for list governance, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative manage_newsletter_admin, but the read-only framing is sufficient context.

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