bunny_get_mc_app_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about what data is included, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as aggregation granularity, timezone handling, date range limits, or response shape.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides a concise metric list that adds real value without repetition or noise.

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 straightforward read-only statistics tool, the description and schema cover the essential aspects: what data is returned, the required ID, and the optional date range. An output schema is absent, so more explicit return-format detail could be helpful, but the metric list largely compensates.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including 'Application ID' and date format hints. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond framing the date range and the metrics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource: historical application statistics. It also enumerates the covered metrics (CPU, RAM, network traffic, latency, volume storage) and limits scope with 'over a date range', making the purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool: when historical application statistics for CPU, RAM, network, latency, or volume are needed over a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is evident from the metric list and date-range wording.

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