Mail statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the domain scoping behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not describe what the statistics include (e.g., storage used per mailbox, counts) or pagination. It adds modest value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the scoping instruction is immediately actionable. Every word 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 simple read-only stats tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to scope, and the required hostingId. It could mention what metrics are returned, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the domain scoping and adds the overall purpose, but it does not provide additional parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('statistics') and resource ('mail storage') for a hosting service, clearly distinguishing it from sibling stats tools like ws_hosting_stats or ws_db_stats. It also mentions the domain scoping option, which clarifies the tool's scope precisely.

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 description gives context on when to use the tool (for mail storage statistics) and explains the domain parameter's effect, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus other stats tools. Usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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