Query IM user statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds date-format support and the natural-day caveat for province/city, but does not describe return shape, pagination, or rate limits; with annotations carrying the safety profile this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences with the action list front-loaded and a date caveat appended; no repetition or filler.

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 10-parameter read-only stats query, the description gives enough action-selection and date-format context to invoke correctly. The absence of an output schema means return details are not described, but the action labels convey what each query returns.

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 is 70%, and the description adds important meaning for the action enum (five modes) plus date format and province/city date semantics. Other parameters (os, app, type, area, datacycle) remain unexplained, so it improves on the schema without fully covering all ten parameters.

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?

States the resource (用户统计) and enumerates five action modes (day/count/province/city/realtime), so the agent knows exactly what the tool reports. It does not name sibling stats tools (yunxin_stats_im/yunxin_stats_app) to differentiate, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Maps each action to its statistical view (昨日概览, 按日/小时趋势, 省份分布, 城市分布, 实时在线), giving clear selection guidance within the tool. No when-not-to-use or sibling alternatives are stated.

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