get_archive_stats

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context about the dual nature of the result (overall dashboard stats plus per-source details), but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as what happens with invalid source IDs or whether the response combines both stats types.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, and every word adds meaning.

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?

For a read-only tool with one required parameter, the description is adequate, but with no output schema it leaves the exact contents of 'statistics' unspecified. An agent can invoke the tool correctly, but it cannot fully predict the return shape or determine precisely which metrics are covered.

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%: the only parameter, sourceId, is documented as 'Ingestion source ID' with a UUID format. The description's phrase 'for one ingestion source' adds little beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('overall dashboard statistics and detailed statistics for one ingestion source'), which makes the tool's main function clear. It is implicitly different from siblings like list_ingestion_sources or get_email, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from get_archive_health.

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 gives no direct statement about when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent choose between get_archive_stats and get_archive_health or list_archived_emails_for_source.

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