Inboxes: List all inboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds real value on top: the auth requirement (User API key via `api-access-token` header), the concrete endpoint, and the note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits being sent unchanged. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause. The trailing endpoint, auth and language notes are compact and each carries useful information, though the language/digits remark is tangential to selecting the tool.

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 single-parameter read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, auth method and behavioral notes an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (account_id) and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's URL path hints at its role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'The numeric ID of the account.' Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'List all inboxes available in the current account.' This is clearly distinguishable from single-resource siblings like gapify_get_inbox. No explicit sibling naming, but the list vs get distinction is inherent in the phrasing.

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?

Implies usage by scoping to 'the current account,' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as gapify_get_inbox or gapify_list_inbox_agents. The agent must infer that this is the discovery endpoint for inboxes.

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