List Catch-Alls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List catch-all configurations,' which implies a read-only operation but says nothing about return format, pagination, ordering, or whether the list is tied to the required order_id. The behavioral surface is almost entirely undisclosed.

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 one short sentence with no filler, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification for a tool with no output schema or annotations, so it loses one point for appropriateness of size.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what catch-all configurations are, that they are tied to an order_id, and what the response will contain. It does none of these, leaving the agent with only the tool name and parameter name to infer behavior.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (order_id: 'Mail order ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score 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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('catch-all configurations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail_catchalls_create or mail_catchalls_delete. However, it lacks any scoping detail (e.g., 'for a given order'), so it is clear but not fully differentiating beyond the resource name.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_aliases_list, mail_forwarders_list, or the non-list catch-all operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and parameter.

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