intigriti_get_researcher_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose authentication requirements, response format, or any potential side effects. It only lists data contents, which adds no behavioral context beyond the stated purpose—especially serious for a tool that might require user-specific data access.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action ('Get your researcher statistics') and lists concrete data points. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), and the description covers the main output fields. However, it omits details about authentication, whether 'your' implies the authenticated user, and whether the list is exhaustive or indicative ('including'). These gaps leave some ambiguity, though it is mostly sufficient for a basic stats getter.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds value by enumerating the returned statistics, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to describe parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 function: retrieving the researcher's own statistics, explicitly listing key metrics (submissions, acceptance rate, reputation, earnings). This is distinct from sibling tools that handle programs or submissions, 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for the authenticated user's personal stats, nor does it contrast with program/submission tools, leaving the agent without explicit context for selection.

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