pmg_statistics_receiver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read, details the API path, and explains parameter mappings (start/end to starttime/endtime). The read-only nature is clear, but it could mention potential limits or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides necessary detail without redundancy. It efficiently covers parameters, config requirements, and API path.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers mandatory config, parameter semantics, and the API endpoint. Minor gap: no mention of potential empty results or time range constraints, but overall sufficient.

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 only 20% (proximo_target described). The description compensates by explaining filter_ as 'optional search string', orderby as 'raw sort spec passthrough', and the mapping of start/end Unix epoch to query params. This adds meaningful context beyond 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 clearly states 'Get per-recipient mail statistics (read)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling statistics tools (e.g., pmg_statistics_domains, pmg_statistics_sender) by specifying 'per-recipient'.

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 the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative statistics tools. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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