pmg_statistics_domains

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the read-only nature, return type (list of per-domain stat dicts), and optional parameters. It does not describe response details or side effects, but the tool is simple and non-destructive, so the transparency is adequate.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose and read-only flag, config requirement, alternative tools and return type, parameter mapping. Information is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, config, siblings, parameters. It lacks an example or more detailed return structure, but is sufficient for a straightforward stat 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the Unix epoch format and mapping start/end to starttime/endtime, and providing context for the proximo_target parameter. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves per-domain mail statistics from PMG, specifies it is READ-ONLY, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools pmg_statistics_mail (overall totals) and pmg_statistics_mailcount (time-bucketed counts).

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 explicitly names alternative tools for different use cases (pmg_statistics_mail for totals, pmg_statistics_mailcount for time-bucketed) and mentions the config requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_* config), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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