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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of the result (count, date range, proceeding-type distribution), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it scans the whole base, or any cost/performance characteristics of a full-database aggregation.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope ('database-wide') front-loaded and the three returned measures listed after the colon. No wasted wording; it is a fragment rather than a full sentence but that suits a stats tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: that it is global and which measures come back. The notable residual gap is the missing boundary with court_category_stats.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is inherently complete. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing needed here because nothing can be supplied.

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 names a specific resource (database-wide statistics) and enumerates the three things returned: record count, date range, and distribution by proceeding type. This clearly distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_decision or search_decisions, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from court_category_stats, which may also return distributions.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word 'Загальна' (general) weakly implies an overview/orientation use case, but an agent facing court_category_stats has no stated rule for choosing between the two.

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