pmg_statistics_receiver

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

Declares itself READ-ONLY and mentions the orderby parameter behaves as a raw sort-spec passthrough unlike the sibling. While it does not detail all behaviors (e.g., pagination, error cases), these are reasonable omissions given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds critical information (read-only, config requirement, return format, sibling comparison, parameter nuance).

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 tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, configuration prerequisite, return value structure, sibling differentiation, and a key parameter detail. No gaps remain.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting that orderby is a 'raw sort-spec passthrough here (unlike pmg_statistics_sender)', which clarifies its unique behavior.

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-recipient mail statistics. It uses specific verbs ('get') and resource ('per-recipient mail statistics'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling pmg_statistics_sender for per-sender stats.

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 guidance: requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config, and directs users to pmg_statistics_sender for per-sender statistics. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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