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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or any special behavior. Since annotations already cover read-only, the description contributes minimal additional transparency.

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 concise sentence in Polish, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with no output schema. It states 'statistics' but does not specify which statistics are returned, the format, or any details about the return value. An agent calling this tool would not know what to expect in the response, leaving a significant gap in context.

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 the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for; no parameters exist to be described.

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 clear purpose: providing statistics about a data extraction pipeline from reports. The verb 'get' and resource 'pipeline stats' are explicit. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_pipeline_health, but the name itself is specific enough to indicate what it covers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several similar get_* tools (e.g., get_pipeline_health, get_alert_delivery_stats), but the description gives no context for selecting this one. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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