Estadísticas SCOMP

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination semantics, data coverage, or rate limits, providing no additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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 redundancy or filler, front-loading the key acronym and its expansion. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only stats tool.

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?

The tool has low complexity: read-only annotations, full schema descriptions for its two pagination parameters, and an output schema defining the return structure. The one-line description is sufficient to convey the primary purpose, though it doesn't elaborate on the nature of the statistics beyond the system name.

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?

The input schema already includes descriptions for both limit and offset, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any extra parameter context, but none is needed given the schema's clarity.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource (SCOMP system) and the type of data (statistics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools about other insurance/pension topics. However, it uses a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so it is clear but not as action-oriented as ideal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what the tool provides, so usage must be inferred from the tool name and context.

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