list_correspondence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is the descending sort order, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about the 100-item default limit, the 1000 cap, or that results are filtered/paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its ordering are stated immediately. It is efficiently written, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters it could have clarified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with four optional parameters, 25% schema coverage, and a domain-specific enum in German, the agent lacks enough to construct correct calls. No guidance on filtering semantics (kind vs query vs since interaction) or on default paging behavior is provided.

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 only 25% – only "query" is documented in the schema. The description supplies no meaning for kind (a 13-value German enum), limit, or since, and does not clarify date format for since or what full-text fields are matched. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List recorded correspondence") and adds a sorting guarantee ("newest first"), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like log_correspondence, update_correspondence, or meineba_postfach, so an agent must still infer which of several mailbox/correspondence tools to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as meineba_postfach or meineba_verlauf for retrieving official mail or history. The word "recorded" faintly implies locally logged entries rather than fetched mailbox contents, but that distinction is left to inference.

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