wattpad_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it iterates per request (implying potential slowness), and it continues past failures by noting them and moving on. This error-handling behavior and performance characteristic go beyond what annotations convey, providing a richer model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core summary, then adds a performance caveat with parameter suggestions, and finally states the return type. The front-loading of the primary purpose is effective. While it includes a bit of extra detail about error handling, that is warranted for a tool that may process many items. Overall, it is appropriately sized without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not fully shown), the description need not detail the table columns. It covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, return format, performance considerations, and error tolerance. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but annotations likely cover that implicit context. Overall, it is complete for an agent to decide to call and interpret the result, especially with the parameters and return type clearly stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description reinforces the purpose of `limit` and `story_id` by tying them directly to the performance behavior ('use `limit` or `story_id` to narrow'). This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions, such as why one would set a limit. It does not repeat the schema's details but connects parameters to practical use.

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 states the tool's purpose: it summarizes reads, votes, and comments per story and per chapter. It also specifies the return format (markdown table), which distinguishes it from siblings that likely return raw data or lists. The verb 'Resume' (summarize) and the resource 'historias y capitulos' are specific, making the tool's role clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use `limit` or `story_id` to narrow the scope due to the tool iterating through stories one by one, which can be slow for many works. This is a practical usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like `wattpad_list_comments` for raw comments, but the aggregated nature of the output makes the use case distinct. The performance caveat is useful for agents deciding whether to call this tool.

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