fofa_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: this is not a routine follow-up to every search, implying a cost/latency reason. However it says nothing about rate limits, quotas, credentials, or whether the query is a literal FOFA query string, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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, purpose first and the usage guardrail second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core purpose is covered. But for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the meaning of fields, top_n, task_id, and request_id (and the query string format) unaddressed.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only a passing hint at aggregatable dimensions ('top titles, countries, ports, or products') gestures at 'fields' or 'top_n'; task_id and request_id are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Return FOFA aggregation statistics for a query.' This clearly distinguishes an aggregation tool from the search-oriented siblings (fofa_search, fofa_host), but it never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only when the caller needs distributions such as top titles, countries, ports, or products') plus a clear exclusion ('do not call automatically after every search'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool for the alternative path, but the when/when-not conditions are unambiguous.

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