lifedb_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Self-check" returning counts and coverage strongly implies a read-only diagnostic, which is useful, but it never states read-only-ness, permission needs, cost, or whether it touches/locks the store.

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 short clauses: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the call timing. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and zero params means no argument gaps. The only shortfall is that a no-annotation tool could still say more about safety/read-only behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; schema description coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 concrete operation (library self-check) and enumerates exactly what it reports: schema version, per-modality/source counts, and time coverage. This makes it clearly a diagnostic/stats tool and distinguishable from the query/export/ingest siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

"应用接入后先调这个" gives an explicit trigger: call this first after the application is integrated. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no exclusions or comparisons against alternatives such as lifedb_query_month.

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