qrtap_group_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavioral fact: what the report contains (code count, combined total, per-day series, device split), which effectively substitutes for the missing output schema. It implies a safe read ('stats') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or permission requirements; for a read-only aggregation tool this is a minor omission, not a gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying use-case/alternative sentence. The illustrative examples ('all branches, all tables, all partner stickers') earn their place by making the batch scope concrete.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (count, combined total, per-day series, device split), and all three params are schema-documented. Minor missing pieces remain: behavior when the group name is unknown/invalid, and whether from/to default to a specific window.

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 100%, so all three parameters (group, from, to) are already fully documented in the schema, including the group enum values and ISO 8601 date semantics. The description adds conceptual context (the group defines the batch being aggregated) but no parameter-specific syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: aggregated scan statistics for a whole group of codes, and specifies exactly what the aggregate includes (code count, combined total, per-day series, device split). It distinguishes itself from per-code querying by saying it works 'without iterating over codes one by one', which implicitly contrasts with the single-code sibling qrtap_code_stats, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'the report for a batch — all branches, all tables, all partner stickers — without iterating over codes one by one', which tells the agent when to pick this over per-code stats. It stops short of naming qrtap_code_stats as the alternative or stating explicit exclusions (e.g., single-code lookup).

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