infomaniak_list_mail_hostings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the 'every' completeness qualifier and the organizational scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. It is consistent with 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?

One concise sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant content.

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 listing tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a single well-documented optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context. No return value explanation is needed given the output schema.

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 single parameter account_id is fully described in the schema (including default behavior), and the description does not introduce any new parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'List', identifies the resource as 'mail hosting (a.k.a. email_hosting)', and scopes it to 'attached to an Infomaniak organization', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes or list_hostings.

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 enumerating mail hostings within an organization but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as get_mail_hosting_full or list_mailboxes, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is present but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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