get_email_client_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), which is sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool. No harmful side effects are implied, but additional details like data freshness or campaign status requirements are missing.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information. It avoids unnecessary words while effectively communicating the tool's function.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for a basic report tool. However, it omits guidance on when to use this report over similar ones (e.g., get_open_report) and any prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be sent).

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the campaign_id parameter format or constraints. However, the tool name and context ('for a campaign') clarify its purpose. The description adds value by specifying the kind of breakdown returned, partially compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool retrieves email client usage data for a campaign, listing example breakdowns (Gmail, Apple Mail, Outlook). However, it does not differentiate from sibling report tools like get_open_report or get_click_report, which serve similar contexts.

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 on when to use this tool versus other campaign report tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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