Generate Mailbox Statistics Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and is not contradicted by the description. The description adds nothing on top of it: no indication of whether the report is generated synchronously or asynchronously, what the effect of the POST is, or whether task_name must pre-exist. With annotations carrying the burden, a 2 reflects a description that contributes zero behavioral context.

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 one short line, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the single sentence is devoted to an endpoint path that duplicates structured information, leaving no room for the guidance an agent actually needs. Brevity here is a symptom of missing content, not economy.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of what the generated report contains, whether the call triggers a scheduled task or runs one immediately, or how results are retrieved. For a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool whose name implies a stateful operation, this leaves an agent materially under-informed.

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% and the single task_name parameter is documented in the schema itself as a 'Scheduled task mmkey for mailbox statistics (e.g. from engine UI)'. Per the baseline rule for high coverage with no added param info in the description, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds nothing about where to obtain the mmkey.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name as an API endpoint: 'POST /v1/reports/mailbox'. It conveys no verb+resource clarification beyond what the name already says, and gives no basis for distinguishing this tool from its near-identical siblings fortimail.reports.generate.mail_stats and fortimail.reports.generate.domain_mail_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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, even though three other report-generating tools sit in the sibling list. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick mailbox_stats over mail_stats or domain_mail_stats.

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