OpenPanel: Get usage stats

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description adds almost nothing behavioral. It does not state whether results are aggregated or per-site, whether the date range defaults to 30d, or how the instance-wide framing squares with the required site/project_id scoping — a point of internal ambiguity the description creates rather than resolves.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag and the trailing "etc." consume what little text exists without conveying information. Brevity here is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is the only source of semantics for a three-parameter tool, and it supplies none of them. A read-only stats tool needs at minimum a statement of what metrics are returned and what the required scoping parameters mean; neither is present.

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% across three parameters, including two required ones (site, project_id), and the description mentions none of them. It neither explains what site/project_id scope nor what date_range accepts (the schema only shows a 30d default), so the meaning must be reverse-engineered from the schema types alone.

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?

"Get usage statistics for the OpenPanel instance (events, users, etc.)" names a verb and resource, but the scope is vague and the "etc." leaves the returned metrics undefined. It gives no basis for choosing it over the many overlapping siblings (get_realtime_stats, get_storage_stats, get_overview_report, get_unique_users, get_event_count). The unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no clarity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives despite a dense sibling set of similarly named stats tools. The agent must guess whether this is a general summary or a specific metric report.

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