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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: daily granularity, the specific metric set returned, workflow scoping, and the 90-day maximum period.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the resource and metrics before the optional filters and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition 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?

Given five parameters, full schema documentation, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough request context to call the tool correctly. It lists the metrics returned, though it does not describe the exact response shape for daily 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the period alternatives and workflow filtering but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and scope: daily stats for automations of a list, with named metrics. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as newsman_get_automation or newsman_get_newsletter_stats.

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?

It explains the available period options (last N days or start_date/stop_date with a 90-day cap) and optional workflow filtering. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_automation, list_automations, or newsletter stats.

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