Get mailbox email stats

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details. It does state the specific aggregation (per day, both directions) and time window (last 30 days), adding value beyond the name. However, it omits potential nuances such as timezone handling, date inclusivity, error cases, or response structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description indicates what will be returned (incoming/outgoing counts per day) and the time range. It doesn't specify the exact output shape (e.g., array vs object) or edge cases, but for a straightforward stats tool, it provides sufficient context.

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 already documents the single parameter 'address' with a clear description ('The full mailbox address'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource (mailbox) and the exact metric (incoming and outgoing email counts per day over 30 days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mailbox or get_domain_stats, which target different resources.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to obtain per-mailbox email volume statistics over a 30-day window). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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