report_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the computation source ('computed from conversation reads') and positions the output as counts, which adds real context beyond the name. But it does not clarify side effects, the definition of 'unanswered,' or why it is explicitly not a Hostaway owner statement.

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 short and front-loads the main functionality in the first sentence. The second sentence is a compact disambiguation, though its meaning is somewhat opaque and slightly hurts clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey enough about inputs and results. It explains the general shape of the report but not the meaning of slaHours, what the output structure looks like, or how this report compares to related inbox/report tools. The odd negative statement about Hostaway adds more confusion than completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps to listingId via 'by listing' but entirely omits slaHours, leaving its meaning, units, and effect on the report unclear. For a tool with only two parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool's core purpose: reporting unanswered thread counts grouped by listing. It also adds a useful source qualifier ('computed from conversation reads') that distinguishes it from raw conversation/message listing tools. However, it lacks a verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like inbox_triage or report_occupancy.

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 implies the tool is appropriate for aggregate unanswered-thread reporting, and the phrase 'Not a Hostaway owner statement' provides a partial exclusion. However, it does not name any sibling alternatives or give explicit criteria for when to choose this report over list_conversations, inbox_triage, or report_occupancy.

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