get_stats

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever - no indication of what data is returned, what 'stats' covers, or whether results are date-scoped beyond the required cdate. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness - there is no substance to front-load. A two-token description for a tool with many near-duplicate siblings leaves the agent with nothing to act on.

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?

No output schema, no parameter context in the description, and a crowded namespace of stats-like siblings. Given the complexity of the surrounding API and the ambiguity of the name, the description is wholly inadequate for correct selection or invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single cdate parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, UTC, example). The description adds no parameter meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline the schema carries the load, so 3 is appropriate.

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 entire description is 'alias of `getUserSummary`', which restates the tool's identity rather than stating what it does. 'Stats' is vague, and the referenced target `getUserSummary` is not present in the sibling list (only the snake_case `get_user_summary` is), so an agent cannot resolve the alias. No verb+resource is given.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, despite dense overlap with siblings like get_user_summary, get_daily_stats, and get_stats_and_body. The alias framing weakly implies equivalence to another operation, but since the target is unresolvable it gives no actionable routing information.

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