Get email stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The only additional claim, "Reads account data," merely restates what readOnlyHint already conveys; it adds no scope, rate-limit, or result-shape context beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ("Reads account data.") is pure filler that duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than earning 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'email stats' actually contains, and it fails to do so. No time range, no scope (account vs. broadcast), and no metric list are provided, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.

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 100% and the single account parameter (with its KIT_ACCOUNTS default behavior) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is correct.

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 "Get email stats" simply restates the tool name and title verbatim, offering no detail about which email metrics (opens, clicks, sends, per-broadcast vs. account-wide) are returned. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_growth_stats, get_broadcast_stats, or get_subscriber_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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many other stats tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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