get_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses a side-effect boundary ('never opens or accepts a conversation') and a verification behavior for Native Unread selection, telling the agent this read does not advance conversation state.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core read scope is front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic ('Native Unread selection is verified when available') but it is not padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is annotation-covered. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description omits pagination/limit behavior and the account parameter, leaving the definition thin for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, and it only partially delivers. It enumerates the folder values and the all/unread/read filter values, but says nothing about limit, account, or the semantics of unread_first, leaving three of five parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading visible inbox/requests/other summaries, with the filtering dimension named. It implicitly distinguishes itself from conversational reads via 'never opens or accepts a conversation,' but never names a sibling tool to route against. Clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the listing tool for inbox-type folders. The phrase 'never opens or accepts a conversation' establishes a boundary, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_conversation, search_conversations, or get_notifications.

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