Get Email Analytics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting that results are cached for 5 minutes and that response times are null when data is insufficient, which annotations do not cover. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: first defines the output, second provides guidance on alternatives, third notes caching. Front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (dashboard with multiple metrics) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It mentions caching and null values, though it could hint at data range or pagination if applicable, but overall adequate.

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% (the single parameter account_id has a detailed description in the input schema). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('detailed inbox-and-sent dashboard') with clear data points. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_email_stats and get_volume_trends, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use get_email_stats for a compact overview or get_volume_trends for a custom date window.' Also mentions caching behavior (5 minutes), guiding usage context.

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