get_warmup_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the statistics include (e.g., metrics like emails sent, open rates). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns complex data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get warmup statistics', 'for an email account', 'last 7 days') contributes essential information, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (returning statistics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'warmup statistics' entail, the format of the return data, or any behavioral traits like pagination or data freshness. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'account_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the account is for email. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter's role in warmup statistics.

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 'Get' and resource 'warmup statistics for an email account' with a specific time constraint 'last 7 days'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_email_account' or 'update_warmup_settings' by focusing on statistics rather than general account info or settings updates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential sibling tools.

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 like 'get_campaign_statistics' or 'get_campaign_analytics', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The time constraint 'last 7 days' implies a recency focus but doesn't specify when this tool is preferred over other analytics tools.

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