Get email stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned content (volume, top senders, trends, read/flagged counts), which is important since no output schema exists; it could add a bit more on period/default behavior.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, returned metrics second. No filler, well front-loaded.

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 read-only analytics tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete; enumerating return content compensates for the absent output schema. Only minor gaps (period default, response format) remain, which the schema largely covers.

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% (account, mailbox with default, period enum all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as period semantics or default scope beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get email statistics and analytics for a mailbox') and enumerates the metrics returned (volume, top senders, daily trends, read/flagged counts). No sibling tool provides statistics/analytics, so it is unambiguously differentiated from the operational email tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose (fetch analytics for a mailbox) but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or reference to alternatives. There is no direct stats sibling to route against, so the omission is mild but real.

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