get_report_queries_user_enabled_stats

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether the result is paginated server-side. The mention of 'filters and pagination' hints at behavior but lacks specifics.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and the parameter guidance following. There is no redundant filler, and every sentence contributes meaning. It could be slightly richer, but it is appropriately concise for a simple GET endpoint.

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 the tool has four generic parameters, no annotations, and schema descriptions are entirely absent, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. Route ID format, accepted filters, pagination mechanism, and response structure are all unspecified. The presence of an output schema does not lessen the need for request-side context, which is severely lacking.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that path_params should contain route IDs, query should contain filters and pagination, and headers should contain required request headers. This is useful but leaves the exact structure of these objects undefined, and the body parameter is not addressed at all.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('user enabled stats'), and reinforces it with the specific HTTP endpoint. It does not differentiate from sibling report_query tools like user_event_stats or user_locked_stats, but the resource name is reasonably specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains where to place parameters, not under what conditions this report query is appropriate. Sibling tools with overlapping purposes (user_event_stats, user_locked_stats) are not mentioned or contrasted.

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