Get Email Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing caching behavior ('Results cached for 5 minutes') and data availability ('null when insufficient data'). 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the analytics scope and key behavioral notes. No wasted words, though listing every metric in the first sentence could be slightly streamlined.

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 tool has an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, caching, and null handling. It is complete enough for an analytics tool.

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?

Only one parameter (account_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Advanced analytics across inbox and sent' listing specific metrics (top senders, peak hours, attachment stats, response times). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_email_stats or get_volume_trends by explicitly naming the analytics types, but does not explicitly compare to them.

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 description notes 'Results cached for 5 minutes' which is a usage hint, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_correspondence_profile or get_volume_trends. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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