get_channel_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output fields but does not disclose behavior such as real-time vs cached data, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise with a clear heading, Args and Returns sections. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it mixes languages (Russian and English) which may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, inputs, and output structure. It lacks details on error cases, data freshness, and pagination (if any), but is minimally adequate.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: platform is clarified with allowed values (telegram, youtube, instagram) and channel as name/ID. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it does not provide format examples or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Получить общую статистику канала' (get general channel statistics). It identifies the resource (channel) and the verb (get stats). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_metrics, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 provides an Args section listing required parameters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metrics or publish_post. There is no context about prerequisites, frequency caps, or suitability for specific tasks.

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