uisp_get_network_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Get' and the listed statistics signal a non-mutating read, which is important. However, it does not mention aggregation semantics, the exact scope of 'network' (all sites vs managed network), or any limitations such as data retention or latency. The description is not misleading, but it discloses only basic read behavior.

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?

Single sentence with an inline list; the verb and resource are front-loaded. Every listed item earns its place with concrete domain terms, and there is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 simple read-only statistics call with two parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive (the aggregate categories), and the schema covers invocation details. It is slightly under-specified only in the overlap with the ambiguous uisp_get_summary sibling, but the listed contents are sufficient for 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the interval enum values and the siri default of false. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond naming the statistics themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get network-wide statistics' — a specific verb and resource whose scope is explicitly network-wide, setting it apart from sibling stats tools like uisp_get_site_statistics and uisp_get_device_statistics. The colon-list enumerates concrete return categories (client/site counts, health, scores, utilization, outages). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'network-wide' is sufficient directional differentiation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named. Use case is implied by the resource name and the phrase 'network-wide', but an agent gets no help deciding between this tool and uisp_get_summary or the per-site statistics tool. That makes the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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