fofa_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the account-type limitation that may cause the call to fail, and the meaning of size as Top-N with a default of 5. This is useful, non-obvious information that helps an agent anticipate behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the core purpose comes first, followed by an important limitation and a parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, so return structure and read-only nature are covered. However, the description does not clarify the semantics of the fields parameter or how the stats are grouped, which is central to using the tool correctly. The account limitation is helpful, but the overall picture is only partially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains size as Top-N with a default, but leaves query and fields entirely semantically ambiguous. An agent cannot tell what query syntax is expected or what fields enumerate (e.g., grouping keys for statistics), which is a substantial gap.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get FOFA stats'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like fofa_search or fofa_icon_search, leaving an agent to infer what kind of 'stats' are returned and how that differs from raw search results.

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 mentions a constraint (personal/education accounts have no stats API) but gives no explicit direction on when to choose fofa_stats over alternatives such as fofa_search. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling tools is provided, leaving the selection decision largely to inference.

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