Get Statistics of Recommendations Across Categories and Risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain the 'impacting=true' gating that appears in the parameter descriptions, nor aggregation behavior, scoping, or cost. It essentially restates the title.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing of richer content.

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?

With an output schema present the return format need not be described, and both optional filters are documented in the schema, so the core is covered. However, the description omits any context about what the statistics are used for or the 'impacting=true' prerequisite that governs both filters, leaving the tool minimally explained.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (tags, groups) are documented there, including their 'impacting=true only' constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about how tags or workspace groups shape the statistics.

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 names a verb-plus-resource combination (statistics of recommendations broken down by categories and risks), which is more than a bare name restatement, but it nearly duplicates the title verbatim and gives no differentiation from siblings like advisor__get_active_rules or advisor__get_rule_details. 'Statistics' itself is left undefined, so an agent knows roughly what domain it returns but not what the numbers represent.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many advisor__ rule/host tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal anywhere is the parenthetical 'impacting=true only' buried in the schema, which the description never references.

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