rh11_projects_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the call may be slow (~1-2s) due to 14+ backend DB queries, which is not inferable from annotations. It also enumerates data domains covered, though it does not mention response format or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and a concise list of data categories, followed by a brief performance note. Every sentence carries information without wasted words.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of the tool's capabilities (daily stats, specific data types, performance warning) given the absence of an output schema. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the enumerated data categories give a useful expectation. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (ui_id: 'Project unique identifier', days: 'Number of days of history (default 30, max 365)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying daily stats, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'daily stats for a Rhodium11 project', enumerating data types (SFB, ATC, Wishlist, PGV, SERP rankings, ARA analytics, Brand Referral, Search Query). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rh11_projects_get (project details) and rh11_projects_get_projection (projections).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools. The slowness note implies a performance consideration, but the usage context is only implicit—users can infer it is for retrieving daily stats when needed.

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