Seed Statistics

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

The description communicates that the tool is observational through words like 'tracks,' 'measures,' and 'returns a dict,' which implies a read-only statistics operation. It does not explicitly state that no state is changed or disclose limits on scope or freshness, and annotations provide only a title so the description carries most of the behavioral burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the resource name, but several lines are redundant: 'Seed/provenance statistics' nearly repeats the title, 'Measures provenance growth' overlaps with 'tracks planted, grown, and touched seeds,' and 'Returns: Dict with seed statistics' restates the first line while the output schema already covers return structure.

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?

This is a zero-parameter statistics tool with an output schema available, so the core facts an agent needs—what is measured and at what scope—are present via 'across the platform.' It would benefit from defining 'planted/grown/touched' or explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add about arguments. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description instead clarifies what the statistics cover.

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, 'tracks,' and identifies the resource as 'planted, grown, and touched seeds across the platform,' so an agent can tell this is a platform-wide seed/provenance statistics tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling stats tools, which prevents a 5.

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 phrase 'Seed/provenance statistics' and the tracking language imply the tool should be used when the agent needs platform-wide seed metrics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as civitae_status or civitae_op_stats.

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