get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains parameters and return type, but lacks details on side effects (none expected), rate limits, or data freshness. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but it is not explicit.

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?

Well-structured with a clear intro, Args list, and Returns line. It is not overly verbose, though the Returns line may be redundant given the output schema. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Coverage of parameters is good, but missing broader context like prerequisites (e.g., account must be set up), data latency, or potential performance impact. The output schema likely fills return structure details, but behavioral context is lacking.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters in the Args section, including examples (e.g., account names, scope options). The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates.

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 states 'Get comprehensive email statistics and analytics,' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_inbox_overview or get_top_senders, which are more specific.

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 alternatives. The scope parameter hints at use cases, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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