get_account_stats

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral context. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'statistics' suggests aggregated data. However, the description does not disclose any details about response structure, whether data is cached, or whether it covers only the current account or the entire server. It is minimally 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and gives concrete examples. Every word contributes value, and it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

As a zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of context. It tells the agent what the tool does and gives examples, but the open-ended 'etc.' leaves ambiguity about the exact fields and return format. This is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage. With no parameters to document, the description need not add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 it retrieves general account statistics (email count, db count, domains). The verb 'Get' with resource 'account statistics' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on individual resources like mail, databases, or domains. The examples reinforce the scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_resource_usage, get_account_info, or get_disk_usage. The description implies it is for general account-level summaries, but does not explicitly state what scenarios favor it over other stats tools.

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