Get Dashboard Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds that the result is a summary/aggregate set of counts, which is modest but real context. It says nothing about authentication or scope of the counts (whole instance vs. filtered), and the 'etc' leaves the returned set open-ended, which matters since there is no 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?

One tight sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is the open-ended 'etc,' which trades precision for brevity in a tool where the returned field set is the core contract.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only aggregate tool, this is close to adequate, and annotations handle safety. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what keys come back, and 'total subscribers, lists, campaigns, etc' leaves the return contract materially incomplete.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including an explicit enum explanation and default, so the schema fully carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about response_format or how the choice of format affects the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it 'Returns summary counts... shown on the Listmonk dashboard,' and enumerates sample fields (subscribers, lists, campaigns). It is distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not contrast itself with the closely related listmonk_get_dashboard_charts, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. The phrase 'shown on the Listmonk dashboard' implies an overview use case, but an agent must infer that aggregated stats should come from this tool rather than get_dashboard_charts or get_running_campaign_stats.

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