get_stats

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

While annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the specific endpoint (/api/stats), what data is included and excluded (no personal data, no per-domain breakdown, no Hall of Fame count, no series), and the cache timestamp. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action, followed by exclusions, use case, and alternative. Every sentence adds information, with no repetition of schema or annotation fields.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema public stats tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: endpoint, data returned, data not returned, use case, alternative tool, and safety/auth profile. No critical gaps.

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 effectively 100%. With no params, the baseline is 4. The description confirms the tool is a simple single-GET operation with no inputs, adding no unnecessary param detail.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Read-only fetch of the public IntoDNS.ai aggregate counters') and explicitly lists the scope (domains scanned, security checks, cache timestamp). It also distinguishes itself from get_hall_of_fame, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use for a lightweight public usage snapshot or status display; use get_hall_of_fame for top-scoring public domains.' This clearly states when to use this tool vs an alternative, along with the unauthenticated GET detail.

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