pmg_statistics_sender

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, required config, that orderby is ignored (with explanation), and how start/end parameters map to query params. This fully informs the agent of 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: purpose first, then prerequisites, then technical details. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

Has output schema so no need for return values. Covers API path, version-specific behavior, parameter mapping, and prerequisites. Complete for a read tool with 5 parameters.

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 low (20%), so description compensates. It explains filter as optional search string, orderby as ignored (with reason), and that start/end are Unix epoch mapped to starttime/endtime. This adds significant meaning 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 starts with 'Get per-sender mail statistics (read)', clearly stating the verb, resource, and read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling pmg_statistics_receiver by noting orderby behavior.

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?

It mentions prerequisite config ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') and compares to pmg_statistics_receiver, giving context on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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