assistantmail_get_usage_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates an informational behavior by saying it 'Provides the AssistantMail REST endpoint', but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what the returned endpoint data looks like, whether network calls are made, or any limitations.

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 a single sentence with no filler words or redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids restating the tool name or the schema.

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 is the sole source of behavioral and return-value context. It fails to explain what exactly is returned when the endpoint is provided, how the mailboxId is applied, or any further invocation details, leaving an agent uncertain about the expected result.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the mailboxId parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail about how mailboxId is used, what values are valid, or what happens if it is missing or invalid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Provides') and names the resource ('the AssistantMail REST endpoint for checking send quota usage'), so an agent can tell the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this 'reference' tool from its sibling assistantmail_get_usage, and it leaves ambiguous whether the tool returns endpoint documentation or performs the usage check.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus assistantmail_get_usage or any other alternative. The description implies a documentation/reference purpose, but it never states when an agent should select this tool instead of the non-reference sibling.

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