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. It declares the operation is read-only, explains that it returns aggregated counts rather than records, and names the categories included (allowed, refused, sent to human, effect outcomes). It doesn't detail output structure, but for an aggregation tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences convey the tool's core behavior, scope, and routing guidance without waste. The read-only and summary aspects are front-loaded, making the tool's identity immediately clear.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what categories it counts, and when to use it versus the receipts alternative. It lacks a description of the exact output fields, but the summary nature and listed categories give an agent sufficient expectation of the return value.

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 for the single optional parameter 'since' is 100%, with a detailed description of formats and omission behavior. The tool description only references an 'optional window,' adding no new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it produces a read-only summary of receipts over an optional window, counting allowed, refused, and human-sent actions and their outcomes. It distinguishes itself from the receipts tool by explicitly saying this tool provides totals rather than individual records.

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 gives explicit direction: 'Use this for totals; use receipts when you need the records themselves.' This tells an agent exactly when to choose this tool over its siblings, with no inference required.

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