List catch-alls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and span all mailboxes of an order, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 that states the action, resource, scope, and pagination without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part contributes useful information.

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 operation with complete schema coverage and clear annotations, the description provides what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The return value is implied by 'Retrieve a paginated list of catch-alls,' and no output schema is required for invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the existing schema descriptions are sufficient, giving the baseline score of 3.

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'), names the resource ('catch-alls'), and defines the scope ('across all mailboxes of a mail order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_createCatchAllV1 and mail_deleteCatchAllV1.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list catch-alls within a mail order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource and action are specific enough that an agent can infer the correct use case.

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