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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only aggregation but doesn't explicitly state side effects, data freshness, or any caveats. For a stats tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's scope. No filler or redundant information.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the main output categories. However, 'assets coverage' is somewhat ambiguous and could benefit from a brief clarification of what it measures.

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; the schema fully documents this. The description adds value by listing the fields the stats cover (total games, systems, assets coverage), which helps set expectations, though no parameter details are needed.

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 that the tool provides global REG-Vault catalogue statistics, specifying the three main outputs: total games, systems, and assets coverage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_game (specific game) and list_systems (just systems).

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 the tool is for obtaining global stats but does not explicitly mention when to use it over siblings or any exclusions. It lacks guidance like 'for specific game details, use get_game'.

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