get--v1-bounce-classification-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ordering by 'total bounces', which hints at sorting behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination, or what the output format is. For a stats-listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action and ordering.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, output format, or behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about bounce classifications, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (group, limit, include_subaccounts). The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'group' refers to, how 'limit' affects results, or what 'include_subaccounts' does. This leaves parameters largely unexplained.

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 'List statistics, ordered by total bounces' specifies a verb ('List') and resource ('statistics'), but it's vague about what kind of statistics (bounce classification stats implied by the name) and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces' or 'post--v2-bounce-classification-metrics'. It states a purpose but not with high specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to bounces, domains, and stats, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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