pmg_statistics_domains

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly identifies a read operation and details the API path and parameter mapping. However, it omits potential rate limits, pagination handling, or any constraints on data volume, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise, using three brief paragraphs to cover purpose, prerequisites, and technical mapping. It avoids repetition and each sentence contributes value.

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 simple read tool with three optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality and tech details. Minor gaps like missing usage examples or constraints are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 description adds significant meaning for the 'start' and 'end' parameters by clarifying they are Unix epoch timestamps and map to query params starttime/endtime. The schema already covers the 'proximo_target' parameter well, and the description lacks further detail on it.

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 PMG per-domain mail statistics as a read operation. While it distinguishes the resource ('per-domain') from sibling statistics tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pmg_statistics_mail or pmg_statistics_sender.

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 mentions optional Unix epoch time parameters and required PROXIMO_PMG_* config, offering some context. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over other statistics tools or provide guidance on scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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