api_get_v1_get_smtp_issue_stat

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description only adds 'summary for the day', which is minimal. It does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or any other behavioral nuance.

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 a single concise line, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. There is no wasted text. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for a simple read-only tool it is appropriately sized.

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 and minimal description, the tool's behavior and response are unclear. The description does not explain what 'issue stat' entails, how the response is structured, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the presence of annotations and a simple parameter set, more context is still needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score 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 identifies the tool as a GET endpoint for retrieving SMTP issue statistics for a day ('Сводный отчет за сутки'). The verb+resource+scope are present. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_issue_stat', which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue_stat or get_statistics. The description only states what it does, with no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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