Inboxes: Show Inbox Agent Bot

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond them: the required auth header (`api-access-token`), the concrete endpoint, and the 'if any' hint that the bot may be absent. It still says nothing about error/404 behavior when no bot is connected.

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 sentence and endpoint are front-loaded and tight, but the trailing note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits is boilerplate that carries little meaning for a read-only lookup with only IDs as input. It consumes space without earning it.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the definition supplies purpose, auth, and endpoint, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only the shape of the returned bot object and the no-bot case are left unspecified, which are minor gaps.

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% and both parameters (account_id, id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or digit-handling detail specific to these parameters beyond the path template.

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 the agent bot connected to an inbox') and even names the exact endpoint path, which pins down scope precisely. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling gapify_set_inbox_agent_bot (write) but never names it explicitly.

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 phrase 'if any' signals the read may return nothing, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as gapify_list_inbox_agents or gapify_set_inbox_agent_bot. Usage is only implied by the resource path.

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