get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact output structure: 'count, mean, std, min, quartiles, max for numeric; count, unique, top, freq for categorical.' This is significant transparency for a descriptive statistics tool, even though safety aspects like read-only behavior are implied.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists output components, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 descriptive statistics tool, the description covers purpose, output, and workflow placement. The only missing piece is the meaning of df_name, but the existence of an output schema and the clarity of the rest make this relatively complete. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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 has one parameter (df_name) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention df_name at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. This is a clear gap.

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: 'Get descriptive statistics for all columns (numeric and categorical).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings like get_column_profile (which targets single columns) and quality_report (which is a broader report).

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 clear usage context: 'Run after quality_report to decide cleaning strategies.' This indicates the typical workflow placement but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or name alternatives. This matches a score of 4 (clear context but no exclusions).

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