Thống kê gửi email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that delivered/bounce rates are the returned metrics, and says nothing about default time range, permissions, or aggregation granularity.

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 Vietnamese and English sentences carry essentially the same content, so roughly half the text is redundant duplication rather than added information. The useful clause (when to use) is front-loaded, but the sizing is inefficient for the amount of guidance delivered.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, with two optional, undescribed parameters and no statement of default range or output shape, the definition is only marginally complete for a stats tool.

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% and the two date parameters (from/to) are undocumented. The phrase "theo thời gian" implies a time dimension but does not explain that from/to are the range controls, their date vs date-time formats, or what happens when they are omitted (both are optional).

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 resource (email delivery statistics) and the concrete metrics returned (delivered and bounce rates over time), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not, however, distinguish it from nearby siblings such as mail_status, mail_list, or monapay_email_stats.

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?

"Khi đánh giá khả năng giao thư" gives an implied usage context (when assessing deliverability), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling mail_* tools. The English half simply restates the purpose rather than adding a selection condition.

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