mautic_get_email_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the useful fact that the numbers are aggregate counters on the email entity rather than per-contact rows, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination (not applicable) or error behavior for an unknown id. Adequate on top of annotations, not rich.

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 compact sentences: the primary action and return fields come first, the disambiguation from the sibling second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, and the description compensates by listing the four counter fields the caller will receive. For a single-parameter read tool that is essentially sufficient; only edge cases (invalid or nonexistent email_id, zero-count behavior) are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter email_id has no description in the schema, so the description must carry meaning — it does so indirectly via the '{id}' URL template, implying email_id identifies the email whose stats are fetched. It does not note that the parameter accepts either an integer or a numeric string, nor that stats are scoped to one email only.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource (email send/read counts), the exact source endpoint GET /api/emails/{id}, and enumerates the returned fields. It also names the sibling that serves a different granularity (mautic_get_stats / email_stats), so an agent can separate it from both mautic_get_email and the generic stats tool.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative for the adjacent use case: row-level data goes to mautic_get_stats with table email_stats. That is real when-not guidance. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that the email must exist or be a segment/legacy email type), so it is clear but not fully complete.

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