Describe a Handigraphs Stats API resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the output includes live resource, metric, split, unit, and filter discovery, but it does not disclose error behaviors, output format, or additional side effects. This is basic context beyond annotations 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with 'Return.' It is efficient but arguably too terse to be fully useful; however, conciseness is about economy, and this achieves that. It could earn a 5 if it packed more meaning, but it leaves too much to inference.

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?

Given two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and siblings that could be confused with this tool, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain target parameters, output structure, or the precise scope of 'discovery,' so the agent may not know how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'resource' as part of the discovery output but does not explain the parameters 'sport' or 'resource' (e.g., expected format or values). The agent has no guidance on how to fill the required fields, making this a significant gap.

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 uses the verb 'Return' and identifies what is returned: 'resource, metric, split, unit, and filter discovery.' This clearly indicates the tool provides discovery information. However, the term 'live' is ambiguous (could mean real-time data vs. metadata), and the description does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though the title and tool name suggest it describes a specific API resource.

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 word 'discovery' implies use when exploring available metrics/filters before querying, but there is no explicit when-to-use or what-not-to-use instruction. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer that this complements 'list_resources' and 'query_stats'.

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