get_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the aggregate nature of the data, the exact metrics returned, the comparison-against-prior-period behavior, and the supported windows. It omits auth/prerequisite context and whether results are cached or live, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage guidance — every clause adds routing or behavioral value with no filler.

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 read-only aggregate tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, metric inventory, trend semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description already states '7, 30 or 90 days'. The description restates the same three windows in prose without adding format, default, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Workspace-wide aggregate email outreach totals and trends') and immediately enumerates the exact metrics returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_campaign_stats and get_campaign_analytics, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Contains an explicit USE THIS directive ('high-level workspace executive summaries') plus DO NOT clauses naming the two alternative tools and the conditions that select them (single campaign vs provider/mailbox breakdowns). Routing is unambiguous.

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