get_user_performance_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data format, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, as critical operational details are missing.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving user performance data with three parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'performance statistics' include, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (date_from, date_to, user_id) with their types and requirements. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'performance statistics' entail or how dates affect the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 as 'Get performance statistics for a specific user', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('performance statistics') with a target ('specific user'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'get_dashboard_data', which might also involve user-related data retrieval, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for detailed user metrics compared to broader reports like 'get_dashboard_data' or 'get_sales_report', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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