List Partner Mailbox Credential Grants

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds useful behavioral context: grants are active, ten-minute approvals, and metadata contains no app-password secret, enhancing security awareness.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds a critical security detail. No wasted words.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately explains the resource being listed (active approvals, metadata without secret). Suitable for a read-only list tool.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed. Schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'active ten-minute mailbox approvals created by operator owners'. Distinguishes from sibling shipmail_consume_partner_mailbox_credential_grant by specifying the scope (active, ten-minute, operator owners).

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?

Implied usage for listing active grants versus consuming them, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned beyond the context of sibling names.

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