Get Spam Complaint Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, auth requirements, or data scope (e.g., date range semantics). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides no extra value beyond them.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere, and annotations cover safety. However, the description is minimal and does not address parameter semantics or usage context, leaving gaps for the undocumented 'tag' and 'messagestream' parameters. For a simple count tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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%; the parameters 'tag' and 'messagestream' lack descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not explain them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, failing to compensate for the undocumented fields. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to filter by tag or message stream.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('count of recipients who marked email as spam'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling count tools like get_click_counts or get_open_counts. It precisely identifies the metric (spam complaints) and the action (retrieving the count), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bounce_counts or get_sent_counts. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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