Generate Domain Mail Statistics Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint string. It does not disclose whether report generation is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it queues a job, or what happens if one is triggered repeatedly.

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?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the single line carries no substantive content and nothing is front-loaded beyond an endpoint reference.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters, and a report-generation tool whose result delivery is undocumented, the description leaves the agent unable to know what it gets back or how to consume it. It is far too thin for the tool's role.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 only maps the tool to its HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/reports/domain-stats), which essentially restates the title. It never says what the report actually contains or how it differs from siblings like fortimail.reports.generate.mail_stats and fortimail.reports.generate.mailbox_stats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the two sibling report generators (mail_stats, mailbox_stats) or reports.list/download. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated.

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