delay_reason_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the distribution is only populated when variance>0, and explains the effects of the scope and agency_role parameters. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects, though for a stats tool the behavioral assumption is safe.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose and condition, defaults and scope options, and agency_role explanation. No redundant or extraneous information; perfectly front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers inputs well and mentions the condition for data availability, it does not describe the output format (e.g., counts, percentages, structure). Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the tool returns to be fully complete for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains period (default 'current'), scope ('all_history' for lifetime), and agency_role (three modes with lens interpretation). However, the 'agency' parameter is not mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states it provides a 'distribution of reason-for-delay', which is a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the condition (variance>0) and differentiates by scope and agency_role, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives usage defaults and options (current period, all_history, agency_role values) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like schedule_breakdown and schedule_changes suggest related but distinct purposes, yet no comparative guidance is provided.

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