sendcraft_get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the specific output metrics adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral details such as time range, data latency, or account-wide vs. sub-account scope, which could be relevant for interpreting the stats.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what the tool does and lists the return metrics; the second gives usage guidance. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what data comes back and when to use it. It could mention any limitations (e.g., available time range, whether it's real-time), but the simplicity of the tool keeps the need for additional detail low.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain input semantics, and it adds value by enumerating the exact metrics returned, which helps the agent understand the output.

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 gets aggregate email statistics with specific metrics: total sent, open rate, click rate, bounce rate, and complaint rate. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'aggregate email statistics' is specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_campaign_analytics' other than by focusing on overall (aggregate) 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?

The phrase 'Use to understand overall sending health' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but it gives a straightforward use case that differs from campaign-specific analytics.

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