get_email_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. For a read operation, stating that it does not modify data would be helpful.

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 concise, fitting in one sentence, and covers the main points. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the list more clearly or adding formatting, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the returned data (volumes, response times, agent breakdown, AI classification). It is fairly complete for a statistics retrieval tool, though it could mention the response format or any limitations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are sufficient, so no extra value from the description.

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 the tool retrieves email statistics including volumes, response times, agent breakdown, and AI classification. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_agent_stats or get_period_stats, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools for statistics. The description lacks context about preferred use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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