List aliases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the pagination scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose details such as default page size, maximum per_page, or result ordering. The added behavioral context is modest but not contradictory.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the scoping detail ('across all mailboxes of a mail order'). There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context. The absence of an output schema would ideally be compensated by return-format details, but 'paginated list' is a reasonable minimal indication for this low-complexity operation.

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 100%, so page, orderId, and per_page are already fully documented. The description's reference to 'paginated list' loosely aligns with page and per_page but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource: a paginated list of aliases across all mailboxes of a mail order. This distinguishes it from related mail tools like mail_createAliasV1 and mail_deleteAliasV1, and from other list tools that target different resources.

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 provides clear context: this tool lists aliases for a mail order and does so across all mailboxes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but among the mail siblings there is no competing alias-listing tool, so the usage context is sufficient.

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