Query Handigraphs stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that the cursor controls continuation, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose return shape, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is only modestly additive.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the discovery precondition. The pagination clause is slightly tacked on but still earns its place.

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?

With 18 parameters at 6% coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most calling details to guesswork. The discovery hint and pagination note help, but a tool of this complexity needs far more semantic coverage to be reliably invoked.

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 6% across 18 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'cursor' gets any implied meaning from the pagination sentence; sport, resource, filters, metrics, page_size, stat_format and the rest are undocumented in both places.

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 (Query) and resource (one live Handigraphs Stats API resource), and the 'one resource' scoping distinguishes it from a bulk/list tool. It also explicitly defers discovery to describe_resource, which helps separate it from siblings like list_resources.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Use describe_resource first') and clarifies that pagination is handled here via cursor, which is real guidance. But it says nothing about when NOT to use this versus run_filter or the filter/research siblings, so alternative selection is only partially addressed.

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