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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by stating the results are aggregated and that contact details are deliberately withheld, which informs the agent about the nature of the output. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately brief, but it omits critical details such as parameter explanations and usage context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'reads and contacts' means, what the statistics look like, or how the days parameter affects results. The lack of output schema makes the description the only source of return-format information, and it is absent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (catalogue_id, days). It does not clarify that days controls the aggregation window or that catalogue_id selects which catalogue's stats are returned. The description offers zero semantic help for the parameters, leaving the agent to guess from names and defaults.

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 reads aggregated statistics (reads and contacts) and explicitly notes it does not disclose contact details. The verb 'read' and resource 'statistics' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like foliade_catalogue_status, which likely provides status rather than statistics. The privacy note adds useful 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention foliade_catalogue_status or any other sibling that could be confused with it, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and title alone.

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