get_webhook_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the address pattern, that this only returns the inbox (not creates a token or waits for mail), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error cases, or the meaning of the `validate` parameter, though the core behavior is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the address template and usage/call-order guidance. Every sentence adds necessary context without padding.

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?

For a low-complexity retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the key usage flow, alternatives, and next step. The main gap is the undocumented `validate` parameter, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Schema documentation covers webhook_token but not validate (50% coverage). The description explains how webhook_token maps to the address and references create_webhook, but it never mentions the `validate` boolean parameter or its effect. The description compensates for webhook_token only, leaving validate undocumented.

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 and resource ('Return the temp inbox') and clarifies the token-based address format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming create_webhook and wait_for_email as related tools with different functions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when the user already has a token') and directs to create_webhook if not, and wait_for_email after mail. This provides clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance.

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