Список почтовых ящиков аккаунта (API v1)

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

The description says 'Возвращает' (returns), implying a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint is false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits, but the contradiction alone mandates a score of 1.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned, the format, and the alternative. It even names the specific fields included, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint creates uncertainty about side effects, slightly reducing completeness.

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, so the input schema already provides complete coverage (100%). The description adds value by mentioning the response fields (auto_reply/spam_filter/forwarding), which helps the agent understand what the v1 format includes. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 tool returns all account mailboxes in API v1 format with full detail on auto_reply/spam_filter/forwarding. It also distinguishes from the sibling list_mailboxes by explicitly naming the v2 alternative, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to prefer list_mailboxes (v2) and notes that this v1 version is only needed when v1 fields are required. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, going beyond a vague hint.

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