pmg_statistics_mail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read' operation, describes output scope (today's aggregate counters), provides endpoint path, and includes version verification note. Lacks mention of rate limits or failure modes, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Description is concise (4 lines), well-structured with a summary line followed by details, 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?

Tool has output schema, so return values need not be detailed. Description provides endpoint, data scope, and sibling differentiation, which is complete for a simple read tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Only parameter (proximo_target) is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. Description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves PMG mail delivery statistics, specifies it's a read operation, and distinguishes itself from sibling pmg_statistics_mailcount by noting that it always returns today's totals, while pmg_statistics_mailcount is for time-ranged data.

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?

Provides explicit configuration requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_* config) and clear guidance on when to use an alternative tool for time-ranged data, making the decision context straightforward.

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