Inxmail MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and successfully states the read-only safety profile, paginated nature of results, and HAL+JSON return format. It also explains the domain concept (complaints = spam markings), though it omits rate limits or specific HAL structure details.

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?

Five efficient sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, domain definition, usage guidelines, filtering capabilities, and behavioral constraints. Information is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by essential context and constraints.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context by specifying the return format (paginated HAL+JSON) and read-only nature. It adequately covers the tool's scope relative to its sibling 'list_complaints', enabling correct agent invocation.

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%, so the structured schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description provides a high-level summary of filterable fields ('Filter by complaint type, recipient...') but adds no semantic detail, syntax guidance, or complex parameter relationships beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and precise resource ('feedback loop complaints for mail relay emails'), clearly distinguishing it from generic complaint tools. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool 'list_complaints' by specifying 'relay emails only'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for relay emails only') and names the specific alternative tool ('use list_complaints instead') for event-triggered transactional complaints, eliminating ambiguity between the two listing functions.

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