get_report_queries_event_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and mentions the HTTP method GET, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination specifics, or the nature of the response beyond an output schema reference. The description hints at read-only behavior but does not explicitly guarantee non-mutating side effects or other constraints.

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 that leads with the core action and then quickly maps the relevant parameters. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could be more explicit about parameter meanings and usage context. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations and an unstructured schema with four free-form objects, the description is insufficient to fully guide an agent. It does not explain what 'event stats' represent, what a 'route ID' is, or how pagination should be formatted. The output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but the missing semantics around parameters and the overall tool behavior make this incomplete for a tool with zero structured help.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does. It tells the agent to put 'route IDs' in path_params, 'filters and pagination' in query, and 'required request headers' in headers, which adds meaningful guidance for those three parameters. However, it omits the `body` parameter entirely and does not elaborate on what 'route IDs' or 'filters' specifically mean, leaving gaps. The description adds value but is incomplete.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and the resource ('event stats') and even names the underlying endpoint (`GET /report_queries/event_stats`), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the many sibling `get_report_queries_*` tools that serve similar retrievals (e.g., `get_report_queries_asset_stats`), so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions how to structure parameters but does not specify the conditions under which this tool is appropriate (e.g., no mention of when event stats are needed vs. user stats or asset stats). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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