get_storage_report

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

With no annotations provided, description carries the full burden and successfully discloses implementation methodology: it uses 'SEARCH LARGER queries' for bucketing and performs 'sampling' (not exhaustive analysis). Does not mention performance costs or read-only nature, though implied by 'Estimate' and 'get' prefix.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the value proposition (what it does), second sentence explains methodology (how it works). Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the report contains (size buckets, top senders by size). Could be improved by noting that results are estimates/samples, but sufficient for tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by connecting sampleSize to 'sender analysis' and implying mailbox scopes the storage analysis, providing functional context beyond the schema's mechanical descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states specific actions: 'Estimate storage usage by size bucket' and 'identify top senders by email size.' Effectively distinguishes from sibling get_top_senders by specifying size-based analysis rather than frequency-based analysis.

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?

Provides implicit context that this is for storage analysis, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like get_mailbox_summary or search_emails. Does not specify prerequisites or when to prefer this over get_top_senders.

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