marketplace_get_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that it applies to owned applications and requires a date range, but says nothing about auth/ownership enforcement, aggregation behavior, or result granularity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the enumerated metrics are packed efficiently. It is well-structured, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 helpfully names the metrics returned, which partly compensates. But with four required parameters, only 25% schema coverage, and an adjacent near-identical sibling, the definition omits enough routing and parameter context to be only minimally adequate.

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 only 25% – just partner_id is documented. date_from, date_to, and application_id carry no descriptions, and the description only vaguely gestures at 'a date range' without explaining the YYYY-MM-DD format implied by the pattern or the role of application_id/partner_id in scoping the query.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned: views, pending grants, activations, new payments, uninstalls. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling marketplace_get_conversion_statistics, leaving the agent to guess which statistics endpoint to pick.

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 and no mention of when not to use it. The presence of the sibling marketplace_get_conversion_statistics makes the absence of any routing rule a real gap, since two 'get statistics' tools coexist without differentiation.

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