Get Bounce Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the detail that results are broken down by bounce type, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as date filtering behavior, handling of null parameters, or any potential rate limits. This is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details. 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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool, but it omits context around key parameters (tag, messagestream) and does not explain whether 'bounce type' refers to a fixed enumeration or custom categories. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 only 50% (todate and fromdate have descriptions, while tag and messagestream do not). The description does not clarify the meaning of tag or messagestream, nor does it explain their role in filtering results. Since the description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, it fails to compensate for the gaps.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get counts of bounced emails, broken down by bounce type.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_bounces or get_bounce by focusing on aggregated counts rather than individual records, and the breakdown by bounce type adds further specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for aggregate counts while list_bounces is for retrieving raw bounce records, nor does it suggest any exclusions or alternative scenarios. The intended use must be inferred from the name and context.

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