List Email Forwards

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

The annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the default limit of 20 with used/max tracking, and the dnsConfigured flag with the caveat that forwarding only works when the domain's nameservers point MX at Porkbun. That caveat is especially useful because it explains a common failure mode.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary result shape. The DNS caveat is appended efficiently, though the sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, read-only), and the description covers the returned fields, quota limits, and the DNS prerequisite. It's nearly complete; the only missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (domain). The description doesn't elaborate on the domain format beyond what the schema already states. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 (list email forwards on a domain) and explains the returned shape: address and forwardTo pairs. This clearly distinguishes it from create_email_forward, delete_email_forward, and list_mailboxes.

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?

Read-only listing is implied by 'List' and reinforced by the readOnlyHint annotation. However, the description doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over other email or forwarding tools, such as list_url_forwards or list_mailboxes. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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