open_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation-like operation. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it is a background job producing a URL, and the browser opens only on the MCP host, which is a non-obvious side effect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the follow-up polling instruction and side-effect caveat. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not needed, and the multi-step job/poll flow is captured. However, with 6 undocumented parameters and no auth or permission notes, the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies refresh (false = cached data) and implicitly open_browser; ttl, start, end, and include_sensitive_location are entirely unexplained.

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: 'Start a background fetch-and-open job' for stats. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stats_job_status by naming it as the polling counterpart, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing context: the agent should poll stats_job_status for the resulting URL, and refresh=false opens cached data immediately, which tells the agent when to accept stale data. It does not explicitly contrast with prepare_stats or close_stats, so the when-not is left implied.

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