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 behavioral burden and does disclose the main output aspects: totals, success rate, P95 latency, and error groups. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how date boundaries are treated (inclusive/exclusive), timezone assumptions, or any limits, but the wording strongly implies a read-only aggregate report.

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-loaded with the key metrics and the date-range constraint in the first clause. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant for an English-capable agent, but it is not verbose and every substantive detail serves a purpose.

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 two-parameter statistics tool, the description covers the core return value categories and the date-range input concept. It is incomplete in smaller but useful ways: no mention of date inclusivity, maximum range, timezone, default behavior when parameters are absent, or how this relates to sibling tools like mail_stats and monapay_email_logs.

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. It mentions a date range, which partially explains the purpose of from_date and to_date, and the parameter names are self-explanatory. However, it does not explicitly state which parameter is the start or end, whether both are required, or what happens when one is omitted.

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 a specific resource (email delivery statistics) and a specific verb (Lấy/Get), and enumerates the metrics returned: totals, success rate, P95 latency, and error groups. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling mail_stats or from monapay_email_logs, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'trong khoảng ngày / in date range' implies this tool is for date-bounded aggregate reporting, which gives some usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_stats or monapay_email_logs, and no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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