listDevicesStats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior: pagination, fuzzy search by specific fields, and filtering by tag or device series type, with the 0/1 mapping defined. It does not describe the response shape or what 'statistics' contains, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so the agent cannot fully anticipate the return format.

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 two sentences with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the concrete search and filter semantics. Every clause earns its place, including the 0/1 mapping for device series type.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no explicit alternative routing. The description leaves the nature of the returned statistics, the aggregation level, and how multiple search/filter parameters interact unspecified. For a complex list-style tool, this is insufficiently complete for reliable agent 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?

Only page and pageSize have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate for the remaining six parameters. It does so by mapping searchSns/searchMacs/searchNames/searchModels to fuzzy search by serial, MAC, name, and model, and by explaining filterDeviceSeriesType with the 0/1 basic/pro meaning. It stops short of defining how multiple filters combine or what value formats are expected, but it adds substantial meaning 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?

Description states a specific action ('Query statistics') and resource ('global adopted devices'), then lists concrete capabilities: pagination, fuzzy search, and filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listDevices or searchDevices by focusing on statistics rather than raw device lists, though it does not name those siblings explicitly. Minor ambiguity remains about precisely what kind of statistics are returned.

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 'statistics for global adopted devices' implies this is for aggregate statistical data rather than per-device management or listing, so an agent can infer a likely use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as listDevices, searchDevices, or getDevice. The usage context is implied, not stated.

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