Get email performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the metric scope (delivery/open/click) and says nothing about time window, granularity, or whether stats are publication-wide versus per-send, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to scoping the metrics. It is a verbless fragment, which slightly weakens the action statement, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description should at least indicate the reporting period or return shape, and it does neither. It is minimally adequate for a read-only analytics call but leaves the agent guessing about the time range covered.

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 'publication' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including loose hostname matching and the first-publication default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (email performance) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: delivery, open rate, click rate. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_post_stats and get_revenue_summary, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the broader get_analytics sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives (get_analytics, get_post_stats, get_dashboard_summary) that overlap in scope. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the email-specific analytics call.

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