pmg_statistics_spamscores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a read operation and maps start/end parameters to query params. It also mentions the API path and live-verified version (PMG 9.1). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), authorization details beyond config, or behavior on missing/incorrect parameters. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the primary action and resource, then provides optional parameters, prerequisites, and implementation details. Every sentence is informative without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides key context: the API path, parameter mapping, and version verification. However, it could briefly mention what the statistics represent (e.g., count per spam score) to give the agent a better expectation. Overall, it is mostly complete given the output schema.

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 33% (only proximo_target has a description). The description adds value by clarifying that 'start' and 'end' are Unix epoch times and that they map to 'starttime' and 'endtime' query parameters. This goes beyond the schema's integer type definitions. For proximo_target, the schema already has a description, so no repetition needed. The description effectively supplements the schema for the two key parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get PMG spam score distribution statistics (read).' It specifies the resource (spam score statistics) and the verb (get), distinguishing it from sibling pmg_statistics_* tools like pmg_statistics_domains or pmg_statistics_virus. The parenthetical '(read)' further clarifies it is a read-only operation.

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 optional Unix epoch start/end timespan and a prerequisite (Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config). However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other statistics tools, nor does it specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. The usage context is implicit but lacks explicit when/when-not directives.

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