Get Inbox Aggregates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the name: it does not say what counts are returned, whether counts respect all supplied filters, or anything about openWorld behavior or cost. Some credit only for framing the output as aggregates rather than records.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency given the 14-parameter surface.

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 14-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain that counts are computed over the filter set and how the filters intersect. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently beyond passing no arguments.

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?

Fourteen parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter mention in the description. Filter semantics such as how search, attention, actionable_only, or the date-range pair combine are left entirely undocumented, so nothing compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read aggregate counts") and resource ("Hyperstar inbox filters"), which distinguishes it from list_inbox_threads or get_inbox_thread_messages that return records rather than counts. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrast, so it is clear rather than fully differentiating.

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?

"to summarize inbox state" implies the use case (dashboard/summary views rather than fetching threads), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_inbox_threads, no note about cost versus listing, and no exclusions.

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