Список всех почтовых ящиков аккаунта

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

The description adds useful context about the return content (address, spam filter statuses, webmail, forwarding, comment) and the API version, but does not explicitly clarify whether the operation is read-only. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, which is ambiguous; the description's 'returns' wording implies a safe read, but it could be more explicit about side effects or permissions. This is a moderate transparency contribution.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second lists the returned fields. There is no redundant filler or vague wording. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 account-wide list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return values and scope. It clearly states what is returned and includes a summary of the fields. It lacks details about pagination or response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of parameters, this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs. The description reinforces this by stating it returns all mailboxes without any filtering, which is exactly what an agent needs to know about parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools, and the description adds no confusing parameter information.

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 'Возвращает' (returns) and clearly identifies the resource as 'все почтовые ящики аккаунта' (all mailboxes of the account). It also includes 'API v2', which distinguishes it from list_mailboxes_v1, and the account-wide scope differentiates it from list_mailboxes_by_domain. This makes the tool's purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool—when all account mailboxes are needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_mailboxes_by_domain for domain-filtered queries, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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