get_email_stats

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the kind of data returned (volume, top senders, trends, counts), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or authentication requirements beyond what is implicit.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values (volume, top senders, daily trends, read/flagged counts). It provides enough context for an agent to decide if this tool meets the need, though it could explicitly mention the time period parameter's effect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (account, period, mailbox). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves email statistics/analytics for a mailbox, specifying metrics like volume, top senders, daily trends, and read/flagged counts. This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools such as list_emails or get_email, which focus on individual emails rather than aggregate stats.

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 implies usage for obtaining aggregated email statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_emails or search_emails. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.

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