ntd_summary_stats

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires special permissions. The only hint is the aggregation nature, but critical safety and behavioral information (e.g., that it queries precomputed data) is absent.

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 very concise: one sentence defining the purpose and a compact list of allowed group_by values. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the structure could be improved by separating the purpose from the parameter enumeration (e.g., using a bulleted list). Still, it wastes no words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It states it returns PO counts and total tablet quantities, which is sufficient to infer the output shape roughly. However, it does not specify if results are returned as a list, what the default ordering is, or whether multiple groupings can be requested at once. Given simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema already lists the possible values for group_by with 100% coverage. The description redundantly repeats these values without adding any deeper semantics (e.g., what 'region' means, how each grouping affects the output). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional parameter context is provided.

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 computes PO counts and total tablet quantities grouped by a field, which is a specific aggregation operation. The resource ('PO counts and total tablet quantities') and verb (implied compute/retrieve) are distinct from sibling tools like ntd_list_pos (which lists individual POs) or ntd_get_po (single PO details), making the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where summary stats are preferred over listing individual POs, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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