get_account_stats

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add operational detail — and it does: bounds are rounded to interval starts, there is a hard 1000-interval cap, granularity is fixed at 300 or 86400 seconds, and monetary values follow the returned currency. The only gap is return shape and what happens when the requested window exceeds the 1000-interval limit, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then constraints, then the account_id fallback rule. No sentence is redundant and the line breaks separate distinct concerns cleanly.

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 read-only time-series tool with an output schema, annotations, and four short parameters, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: units, rounding, interval options, the interval cap, and account resolution. Nothing material is missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it names all four parameters' meaning: from_time/to_time as Unix seconds in a half-open range with rounding behavior, interval as the 300/86400 granularity, and account_id defaulting to TELEGRAM_ADS_ACCOUNT_ID or the token owner. It adds real semantics beyond the bare 'To Time'/'Account Id' titles; a minor gap is not restating the interval default of 86400.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get account statistics') with the scope immediately qualified by a half-open time range in Unix seconds. An agent can distinguish this from get_ads_stats or get_account_report by the 'account' scope, but the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage boundaries are implied by the time-range framing rather than stated: nothing says when to prefer this over get_account_report or get_ads_stats, and there are no exclusions. The operational constraint (max 1000 intervals) and the account_id fallback rule give some context, but the choice among sibling analytics tools is left to inference.

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