Inboxes: Get an inbox

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: the required auth mechanism (User API key in the api-access-token header) and the note that text/IDs may arrive in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits and are passed through unchanged. It does not describe error behavior or response shape, but the auth and encoding context is substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the HTTP path and auth line are compact and useful reference. The Persian/Unicode sentence is somewhat tangential but does carry format information, so it earns its place reasonably.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, the auth requirement, and input-format quirks. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though error semantics are absent.

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 100%, so both account_id and id are already documented and the baseline is 3. The digit-handling note ('IDs, numbers and phone numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits') adds input-format semantics beyond the schema, so it edges above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get an inbox in the current account), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-duplicate sibling gapify_client_get_inbox or from gapify_list_inboxes, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives: nothing about when to fetch a single inbox by ID rather than list them, and nothing explaining the difference from gapify_client_get_inbox. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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