pmg_statistics_sender

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only, mentions config requirement, and reveals that orderby is ignored (HTTP 400). However, it does not discuss pagination or behavior with no results, but output schema exists to partially compensate.

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, front-loaded with purpose and read-only status, no redundant words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral quirk (orderby). Lacks discussion of output structure but output schema compensates. Could mention config necessity earlier.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (e.g., orderby ignored is already in 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?

Description clearly states it gets per-sender mail statistics and is read-only. It distinguishes itself from pmg_statistics_receiver for per-recipient stats, providing strong differentiation among sibling tools.

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 when to use (per-sender stats) and gives an alternative tool (pmg_statistics_receiver) for per-recipient stats. Also warns that orderby is ignored, which helps avoid misuse.

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