get_top_senders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (analysis, ranking, grouping) and parameter effects (defaults, grouping). No side effects are noted, but none are expected for a read-only analysis tool.

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, well-structured with a purpose sentence, bulleted use cases, and a parameter list. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return value (ranked list with counts). It is complete for the tool's complexity, especially given the presence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear explanations for each parameter (account, mailbox, days_back, top_n, group_by_domain) with defaults and intended use, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Analyse a mailbox to find the most frequent senders.' It provides specific use cases (identifying key contacts, high-volume senders, newsletter sources) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sender frequency analysis.

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 includes explicit use cases ('Useful for...'), guiding when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to alternative sibling tools, though the unique purpose is clear.

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