imap_domain_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a non-mutating aggregation operation via 'Get statistics', and adds the spam-detection intent, but it does not disclose the exact output shape, whether anything is modified, or how thresholds affect results.

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?

Two short sentences state the function and the motivating use case with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a pragmatic scenario.

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 description is adequate for selecting the tool, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, it leaves ambiguity about what statistics are returned (counts, percentages, top domains, etc.). The input parameters are well-covered, but the return contract is underspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since each parameter is already documented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('statistics about sender domains') with a folder scope, clearly distinguishing this aggregation tool from sibling search/retrieval tools. It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's analytic function.

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?

It identifies a concrete use case: 'identifying bulk senders or spam patterns.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over single-email or search tools.

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