daily_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, without revealing whether this is a read-only operation, any required authentication or rate limits, or what happens if the tenant has no logs. This is minimal transparency for a stats endpoint.

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, which is appropriately sized. However, it is too sparse to be maximally effective. Every sentence should add value, and while this one does state the purpose, it lacks additional useful context. It is not verbose, but underinformativeness detracts from conciseness.

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 that there is an output schema (though unknown content) and 0% parameter documentation, the description should provide more context, such as the time range of the stats, granularity (e.g., daily, hourly), or that it returns aggregated volume. The description leaves too many essential details unspecified for a stats tool.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description mentions 'for a tenant' but does not explain what 'tenant_id' represents or how to obtain it. The 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds little value beyond the schema field names.

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 uses a specific verb 'return' and resource 'daily log volume stats' for a tenant. It effectively communicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'log' or 'search', which might also return log-related data, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context. For example, it could clarify if this is for aggregated daily stats or real-time data, relative to 'search' which might provide detailed log entries.

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