network_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying results are 'bounded' and 'aggregate' rather than raw or unbounded, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what the bound is, what data feeds the stats, or whether any caching or pagination applies.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key descriptor ('bounded aggregate') appears before the resource. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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 parameterless read-only call the description is nearly sufficient, and the sibling names provide some context. However, there is no output schema and no detail about which statistics are included, so an agent cannot predict the shape or content of the response beyond 'network statistics'.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic gap for the description to fill. The baseline score of 4 applies because parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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 verb ('Get'), a resource ('ADSBiq network statistics'), and a clear scope ('bounded aggregate'), which distinguishes it from the sibling aircraft-focused tools. However, 'ADSBiq' is unexplained and 'bounded' is somewhat ambiguous, leaving exactly which statistics are returned unspecified.

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 aggregate wording implies use for network-level metrics rather than per-aircraft queries, and the sibling list (get_aircraft, nearby_aircraft) provides implicit alternatives. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over those siblings or any exclusions.

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