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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two useful behaviors beyond the schema: a 60-second server-side cache and cheap repeated-call cost. It implies read-only aggregation rather than stating it directly, but this is well implied by 'stats'.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the resource and output metrics, then add the performance note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 aggregate endpoint, the description sufficiently tells the agent what it returns, how fresh the data is, and how much it costs to call. With no output schema present, this is enough for safe and correct invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4 and the description needs to explain nothing about inputs. The empty schema already makes the no-input contract clear.

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 resource ('BSV social graph') and the exact metrics returned ('total posts, total users'), so an agent can tell what this tool offers. It is also implicitly distinct from sibling profile/feed/user tools via the 'Global stats' framing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear use context: global aggregate stats for the social graph, plus a concrete performance signal ('Cached 60s', 'Cheap to call repeatedly') that explicitly invites repeated calls. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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