sch_mail_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (counts, date range) and implies a read-only operation, but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions/auth it needs, or whether it hits the network per call. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact args list; every line earns its place given the zero-coverage schema. Slightly verbose but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be re-explained, and both parameters are documented in the description despite 0% schema coverage. Only the read-only/auth profile is left implicit for a zero-annotation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents folder's default (INBOX) and explains account as a credentials.json key with an example ('personal'/'work') and a default-resolution rule. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 ('mailbox statistics') and enumerates the outputs (total messages, recent/unseen counts, date range). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling list/get/search mail tools, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 word 'Quick' hints that this is a lightweight summary, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when an agent should prefer sch_list_mail or sch_search_mail instead. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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