exchange_get_mailbox_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and enumerates the returned statistics, but it does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or how 'DB' or 'last logon' should be interpreted.

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 conveys the operation, result fields, and intended use with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and return fields. However, the undocumented 'identity' parameter is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly, and no output schema exists to fill that void.

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 schema provides no description for 'identity' (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining accepted identity formats such as alias, UPN, or GUID. The agent is left to guess what value to pass.

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-resource pair ('Get mailbox statistics') and enumerates the exact data returned (size, item count, last logon, DB), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This is distinct from sibling tools like exchange_get_mailbox or exchange_list_mailboxes, which focus on mailbox objects rather than statistics.

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 phrase 'troubleshooting storage/quota' provides a clear context in which this tool is the right choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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