code-fundi-activity-stats

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Get' and 'Shows', adding context about the output content (queries per day with credit costs). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as timezone handling, aggregation specifics, or any limits, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 with two clearly related clauses: what it gets and what it shows. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose and output content. It could be more complete by mentioning sibling tools, but the core context is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'range' parameter, including an enum and default. The tool description only repeats the notion of a 'date range' without adding syntax or format details, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('daily activity statistics'), and specifies that it shows queries per day with credit costs. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tool code-fundi-usage-stats, which likely covers similar usage metrics, so it misses the sibling differentiation that would merit a 5.

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 implies the tool is used when daily activity stats for a date range are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like code-fundi-usage-stats. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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