Get Email Statistics by Category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the 13-month data availability window, which is a key constraint. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as the aggregation grouping (day/week/month) implied by the schema, the read-only nature, or any rate limits. The description adds moderate transparency but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a critical constraint in the second. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Despite the schema describing all parameters, the description lacks context about return format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling stats tools. For a tool that produces statistics, the output structure is not hinted at, and the absence of output schema amplifies the need for description completeness. The agent may not know what 'stats' includes (counts, percentages, etc.).

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 with descriptive parameter explanations. The description does not add any new meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rules, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'email statistics for specific categories', making the purpose clear. The added constraint 'available for previous 13 months only' provides useful temporal context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling stats tools like get_global_stats or get_stats_by_country, though 'categories' is a unique dimension.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer applicability from the tool name and parameter schema alone.

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