Thống kê gửi email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action ('đọc'/'review') and names the metrics involved (delivered, bounce), but it does not disclose output shape, aggregation granularity, data latency, or whether both metrics are always returned. For an unannotated tool this is thin coverage.

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 compact and front-loads the evaluation context, but the Vietnamese and English halves are largely redundant restatements of the same idea. A single merged sentence would convey the same information, so not every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool (two optional date params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and the key metrics. But an agent still lacks clarity on what the response contains and how from/to shape the query, and with no output schema to fall back on, those gaps matter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'theo thời gian' (over time) loosely hints that the from/to date parameters define a time window, but it never maps from→start and to→end, never mentions optionality, and gives no format guidance beyond the schema regexes. This is marginal compensation for a 0%-coverage 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 states a concrete activity — reviewing email delivery statistics, specifically delivered and bounce rates over time. This distinguishes it from send/provisioning tools like mail_send or mail_domain_add. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as mail_status or monapay_email_stats, and the weak verb 'review/đọc' leaves the exact operation somewhat open.

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 Vietnamese clause 'Khi đánh giá khả năng giao thư' supplies a scenario-based trigger ('when evaluating mail delivery capability'), which is a legitimate usage signal. But it gives no exclusions and never points to alternatives, leaving an agent uncertain whether to pick this over mail_status, mail_list, or monapay_email_stats.

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