get_application_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions performance ('Much faster') which is useful behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. It adequately indicates a read operation but could be more comprehensive.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose and scope, the second provides critical usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized.

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 read-only stats tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: purpose, scope, and performance comparison are covered. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better explain response structure or limitations.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get aggregated stats') and resources ('job applications'), detailing what stats are provided ('total counts by status and auto-apply metrics'). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_applications' by emphasizing aggregation vs. pagination.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Much faster than paginating through list_applications' directly compares it to a sibling tool, indicating this is preferred for aggregated stats over detailed listings.

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