Получение почтового ящика (API v1)

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

The description states it 'returns data,' implying a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint to false and idempotentHint to false. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided to resolve the inconsistency.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds valuable detail about the return format. No filler or redundancy.

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 description explains the response structure but lacks usage guidance and fails to resolve the annotation contradiction. Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema coverage, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 (domain, mailbox) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It provides no extra semantics beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 ('Возвращает' - returns) and identifies the exact resource ('данные одного почтового ящика') plus the API version (v1) and distinctive structured blocks (auto_reply/spam_filter/forwarding_*), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mailbox and list_mailboxes_v1.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mailbox or list_mailboxes_v1. The mention of 'API v1' implies a versioning context, but there is no clear instruction on selection criteria.

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