get_dashboard_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the read-only aggregate nature ('counters') and account-wide scope, which is the essential behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the time range for forwarded/blocked/exposure counts, how 'active aliases' differs from 'total aliases,' or whether results are live or cached. For a zero-parameter read tool the burden is light, and the core behavior is covered.

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?

One sentence of 12 words with zero filler. The scoping phrase 'Account-wide' is front-loaded, and each listed counter (total aliases, active aliases, emails forwarded, emails blocked, exposure alerts) carries information about the return payload. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value information, and it does enumerate all five counters. The only gaps are semantic details: time-frame for the counters (all-time vs. trailing period) and the definition of 'active aliases.' Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter read tool, these are minor and an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero parameters (vacuously 100% coverage), so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining why no parameters exist: 'Account-wide' means the tool operates on the whole account with no filters, so an agent understands no inputs are needed. There is no conflict between description and schema.

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 states a specific resource (account-wide counters) and enumerates exactly what is returned: total aliases, active aliases, emails forwarded, emails blocked, exposure alerts. The verb 'get' is in the name. It clearly distinguishes from siblings, since every sibling is a CRUD/action tool on individual records (aliases, domains, destinations, email) while this is the only aggregate reporting tool in the set.

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 context is only implied: the 'Account-wide counters' wording signals this is the high-level overview tool versus list_aliases/list_email_logs/list_exposure_events for granular records, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer the choice from sibling names rather than being told.

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