cost_routing_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does convey that the tool is read-oriented (get/shows) and lists what information it returns, but it doesn't explicitly state lack of side effects, freshness, auth requirements, or any caveats about the stats. This is acceptable for a no-parameeter stats tool but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds detail about what the tool exposes. The 'Cost-Aware Routing' prefix gives context and the following sentences name the specific outputs without fluff.

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?

This is a low-complexity, no-arameter tool, and the description names three concrete output categories: available providers, routing decisions, and tier configuration. Since there is no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-oriented information; a little more detail about time ranges, aggregation, or output format would make it fully complete.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4; the description adds no unneeded parameter noise.

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 states a specific verb, 'Get statistics', and a specific resource, 'embedding provider routing', and lists the content involved (providers, routing decisions, tier configuration). It is clearly about a stats/overview tool, not a modifier or memory tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling cost_routing_explain, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from that likely related tool.

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 explicit guidance about when to call this tool rather than a sibling such as cost_routing_explain or the other memory/health tools. The phrasing 'Get statistics' gives a weak implicit use case, but no context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing guidance is provided.

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