get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'cheap' performance hint and clarifies it returns aggregate counts and a timestamp, which is useful context. No contradictions; the description doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations, but that's acceptable given the annotations are comprehensive.

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, front-loads the purpose, and the usage note is a single clause. No fluff or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully conveys what it returns and when to use it. The presence of an output schema handles return values, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it's a no-argument call. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so nothing is missing.

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 the tool retrieves platform-wide totals: victim count, tracked group count, press entry count, and latest victim timestamp. It distinguishes from siblings by being a global summary, not specific to any entity. The verb 'Get' and resource 'platform-wide totals' are specific and 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 provides a clear use case: 'cheap freshness check before running larger queries.' It implies when to use it (before expensive queries) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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