bbb_scamtracker_state_stats

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 key behavioral traits: the tool uses the same JSON API as the BBB heatmap dashboard (not an HTML scrape) and requires no credentials, both of which inform an agent about access and reliability. It does not mention rate limits or response size, but for a read-only aggregate endpoint, this level of transparency is sufficient.

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 three sentences with zero wasted words: first states purpose, second details the output metrics, third clarifies the data source and access model. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and scope) 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: the data scope (states/provinces), the time-window parameter, the metrics returned, and the API source. It does not specify the exact response structure, but given the explicit list of metrics and the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 fully covers the single 'period' parameter with an enum and description ('Aggregation window, default 90'). The description redundantly mentions 'for a given time window', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get Better Business Bureau Scam Tracker state/province aggregate stats'), clearly defining the scope (US states and Canadian provinces) and the output (report counts, dollar losses, per-capita rates, year-over-year change, top scam-type breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bbb_scamtracker_search and bbb_scamtracker_detail, which are for individual lookups rather than aggregate stats.

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 clearly implies its use case—when aggregate state/province statistics are needed—by enumerating the metrics it returns and the time-window parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over the detail/search siblings. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, hence 4 rather than 5.

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