stats_waitlist_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention API key requirements and the required id, but it does not describe the response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the implied read-only GET.

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 compact and front-loaded, giving the endpoint, required id, and auth requirement in one sentence. The reference to an external guide adds minor overhead but does not hurt readability.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and what the data means. It fails to do so, leaving the id semantics and the nature of the stats undefined.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that query.id is required, adding no meaning about what id represents or its format beyond the permissive anyOf in the 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 identifies the resource as 'Waitlist Stats' with a GET path, but does not specify what statistics are returned or how they differ from sibling tools like stats_most_waitlisted_v1. The verb is implied by GET, but the purpose remains vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many waitlist/stats siblings. It only states the required id and points to an external guide, without conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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