Get email performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an aggregate 'overall' view, but it does not disclose details like time windows, aggregation behavior, or whether delivery/open/click rates are returned as percentages or counts.

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 short, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Overall email performance') and then lists the specific metrics. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the scope and the key result fields. It could be slightly stronger by noting the time period covered, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description covers what an agent needs to invoke it.

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 optional parameter is fully described in the schema with matching behavior and an example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'across the publication' loosely maps to the publication parameter, but the schema already handles that.

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 names the resource ('email performance') and specific metrics (delivery, open rate, click rate) at publication scope. The phrase 'across the publication' differentiates it from post-level or note-level stats tools, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 gives clear context: use this for overall publication-level email performance rather than post-specific or note-specific stats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope wording is strong enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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