get--v3-domain-aggregates-countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool aggregates counts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly states the core function. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'counts' are being aggregated (e.g., emails, bounces), the time range, or the return format. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has one parameter 'domain' with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description 'Aggregate counts by country' doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the parameter's purpose and format completely 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 'Aggregate counts by country' clearly indicates the tool performs aggregation and groups by country, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain-aggregates-devices' or 'get--v3-domain-aggregates-providers' that likely aggregate by different dimensions, leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding its unique role.

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 available (e.g., other aggregation tools, stats tools), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of guidance makes it difficult for an agent to select this tool appropriately among similar options.

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