Hosted Edge Stats coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope of data covered, the nightly build timing, and the boundary between this tool and the open-source edge-stats engine. It does not describe return formatting or size, but for a zero-parameter coverage tool this is sufficient context.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope, the second clarifies what is not included, and the third gives the workflow. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool covers, where it fits in the workflow, and what it does not provide. An agent can confidently invoke it as the starting point for Edge Stats questions.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. The empty input schema is already fully covered, and the description appropriately focuses on content rather than parameters. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 the resource ('hosted Edge Stats store') and enumerates its contents: symbols, session calendars, coverage windows, session counts, and nightly build timestamp. It lacks a strong imperative verb like 'List' or 'Get', but the phrasing 'What the hosted Edge Stats store covers' is specific enough to tell an agent what this tool returns and distinguishes it from edge_presets and edge_report.

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?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Start here, then edge_presets for the questions you can ask, then edge_report for a result.' It also clarifies that session statistics come from a separate open-source engine, which helps an agent avoid expecting statistical results from this tool.

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