Server and account information

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only reporting behavior ('Reports what this account and server can do'). It adds useful behavioral context by framing the tool as a diagnostic starting point and listing the categories of information returned, which goes beyond merely restating the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and enumerates specific report contents, and the second sentence provides a practical usage cue. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 description is complete enough given the tool's simplicity: no parameters, a read-only annotation, and a clear enumeration of what is reported. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already fully covers the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and identifies the resource ('what this account and server can do'), then enumerates concrete information categories such as configured mailbox, IMAP capabilities, stored flags, new-mail keyword support, and enabled tool groups. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on mailboxes, messages, and attachments rather than server/account configuration.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Start here when a call fails for reasons that sound like configuration.' This is a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no exclusion is necessary.

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