get_verification_stats

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

Since annotations are absent, the description fully carries the burden. It details that the tool is read-only, stateless, idempotent, with rate limits (free 10/day, pro unlimited), authentication requirements, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and beyond typical expectations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, returns, behavior, when to use/not, behavioral transparency). While somewhat verbose, all sentences add value and the structure aids readability.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values. It covers all behavioral aspects comprehensively for a simple tool with one optional parameter. Minor gap: does not specify exact format of returned statistics.

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 input schema has one optional parameter (api_key) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions authentication in behavior but does not explicitly link to the api_key parameter or clarify its usage. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 returns statistics on verifications, including counts, certificates, and uptime info. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_certificate or verify_text_origin by focusing on statistical aggregation rather than individual verification.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding agents to apply this tool for structured analysis but not for real-time production decisions without human review. It provides clear context but could better differentiate from siblings.

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