dcs_report_stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "[READ]" prefix merely restates that. Beyond the safety hint it discloses nothing — no indication of scope, filters, aggregation window, or shape of the returned counts, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the read nature is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence does not convey enough to make the tool reliably selectable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is the only place an agent can learn what is actually returned, and it does not say. "Counts" of what, over what period, and in what units remains unknown, leaving the agent to guess before calling.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description could note that the counts are unfiltered/global, but no parameter semantics are needed here.

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?

"Read report counts" names a verb (read) and an object (report counts), so it is not pure tautology, but "counts" is undefined — it does not say whether these are counts of reports, report jobs, or report results. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings such as dcs_reports or dcs_report_jobs, which an agent would naturally consider for the same question.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (dcs_reports for listings, dcs_report_jobs for job records). The agent must infer from the name alone which of the report-related siblings answers its question.

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