Get domain email stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the core behavior (returning daily counts for incoming/outgoing email over 30 days) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly say it is non-mutating or note any prerequisites like admin permissions. For a simple stats query, this is adequate but not overly detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the returned data (daily inbound/outbound counts for a 30-day window). It could clarify whether incoming and outgoing are separate counts, but the phrasing is sufficiently clear for a straightforward stats tool.

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 only parameter `name` is already described in the schema as 'The domain name', and the description reinforces this context by mentioning 'a domain'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal new meaning beyond what is already structured, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'domain email stats', and the precise scope: incoming and outgoing emails per day for the last 30 days. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain (domain configuration) and get_mailbox_stats (mailbox-level 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 when to use this tool (to retrieve aggregate email volume for a domain over the past month) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives such as mailbox-level stats. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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