list-shared-mailbox-messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the access prerequisite that the signed-in user must have access to the mailbox, but it does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior or search semantics beyond what the schema already covers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a relevant access condition. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 schema and annotations carry much of the burden with 100% parameter coverage and a clear read-only profile. However, the description alone is thin for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, and it does not address folder-scoped alternatives or expected result structure. Some additional context would improve 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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only mentions 'search' as a general capability, which is already reflected in the search parameter schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List/search messages of a shared mailbox.' It also distinguishes the tool from personal-mailbox siblings by explicitly saying 'shared mailbox' and includes the access condition. This is specific enough to identify the tool's role.

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 implies when to use the tool (for shared mailbox messages), but it does not explicitly contrast alternatives like list-mail-messages or list-shared-mailbox-folder-messages. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of folder-scoped variants, so usage guidance remains only implicit.

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