pmg_statistics_mailcount

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

Declares 'READ-ONLY' and describes output as 'list of time-bucketed count dicts' with bucket size default. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is clear about safety and format but does not address potential limits or side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only indicator. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, config requirement, parameter defaults, and alternative tool. It does not detail error handling or performance, but these are not critical for a statistics query.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about default bucket size (3600 = 1 hour) and time range interpretation, but does not go beyond what is in the schema.

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 states 'get per-bucket mail count statistics' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling pmg_statistics_mail by noting that tool provides a single aggregate total for today.

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?

Explicitly states configuration requirement 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config.' and provides an alternative tool for a different use case: 'For today's single aggregate total use pmg_statistics_mail.'

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