get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the statistics are returned in, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, structurally it's efficient with every word serving a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters including a nested filters object with 14 properties), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which might help with understanding returns), the description fails to provide any context about what statistics are retrieved, how parameters affect results, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool with this level of parameter complexity, the description should do much more to help the agent understand when and how to use it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters whatsoever—it doesn't mention 'website_id', date ranges, or filtering options. With 4 parameters (including a complex nested 'filters' object with 14 sub-properties) completely undocumented, this represents a major gap in understanding what inputs are needed and how they affect the results.

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 'Get visitor statistics' states a basic action and resource but is vague about what specific statistics are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_metrics' or 'get_pageviews', leaving ambiguity about what differentiates these tools. While it avoids tautology with the tool name 'get_stats', it lacks specificity about the type of statistics returned.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metrics', 'get_pageviews', or 'get_active'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameters without any descriptive help.

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