get_entry_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the output categories but does not explain how the optional 'range_type' parameter affects results, whether a default range is applied, or the exact return format. This is a significant gap for safe and correct invocation.

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 names the verb and resource without waste. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 has a simple design (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks details about parameter behavior and return structure. The agent cannot fully understand what the response will look like or how range_type influences the counts, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides a clear description and enum for the single 'range_type' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so it receives the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves visitor entry statistics with specific counts (approved, completed, request_approved). It distinguishes the tool by listing the specific stats, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for different use cases.

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 usage is implied by the name and the word 'statistics' – one would use this tool when needing entry counts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_visitor_approvals or get_approvals_count, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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