postmark_get_delivery_stats

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

The description lacks behavioral details. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens if the API key is invalid. Only hints at response content.

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 (one sentence, 15 words) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level understanding. But it lacks specifics about what 'delivery statistics' entails (e.g., time period, aggregation) and does not mention response format.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (api_key) with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get delivery statistics) and mentions specific metrics (bounces, spam complaints, open rates), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like postmark_search_messages or postmark_send_email.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other Postmark tools. No context about typical use cases or prerequisites (e.g., needing an API key).

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