prepare_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: the operation is asynchronous, resumable, and returns a job_id for polling, plus a consent gate. It does not explain the consequence of the non-idempotent hint (e.g., whether repeat calls spawn duplicate jobs).

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 front-loaded clauses with zero filler: the primary action and the follow-up step come first, with the consent caveat last. Every phrase carries information.

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 values need not be described, and the job_id reference is sufficient. However, for a 3-parameter export tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves date-range and consent-flag semantics underspecified.

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 carries the burden for all three parameters. It only indirectly gestures at include_sensitive_location through the consent sentence and says nothing about the format or expected values of start and end, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 action and mode ('Start a resumable background export') and names the sibling used to monitor it (stats_job_status), so it is distinguishable from the poller and from open_stats/close_stats. It does not specify what data is exported (rides, account, time range), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 continuation guidance ('poll stats_job_status with the returned job_id') and a precondition for a specific input ('Route GPS requires explicit consent'). No explicit when-not or alternative-tool exclusion is stated, but the invocation path is well defined.

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