List API tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: the list is paginated, spans all mail orders, and plaintext tokens are never included — they appear only at creation time. This sets accurate expectations about response contents and security.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action, includes a useful documentation link, and adds the critical plaintext-token caveat without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers pagination, scope, filtering, and the key security behavior. It does not detail the response structure or default pagination values, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absent output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor context by mentioning pagination and optional order filtering, but it does not explain page/per_page semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a paginated list of Hostinger Email API tokens.' It adds useful scope information ('across all your mail orders') and an optional filter by order, making it easy to distinguish from token creation/revocation siblings without opening their schemas.

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 when to use this tool — when you need to retrieve API tokens across mail orders, optionally filtered by order. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives such as mail_createAPITokenV1 or mail_revokeAPITokenV1, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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