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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the actual data returned (active stores and wilayas), providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Mystoq network statistics' and includes the two metrics.

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?

While the description mentions the two statistics, it lacks details on output format (e.g., types, example values) since no output schema exists. An agent might need clearer expectations of the response structure for a tool with no parameters.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description naturally adds no parameter-specific meaning since none exist, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 provides 'Mystoq network statistics' with specific metrics: 'number of active stores and wilayas covered'. This is a distinct verb+resource combination not replicated by any sibling tool, as no other tool offers statistics.

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 implies usage when network-level aggregate data is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given there are no sibling tools with similar stats, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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