get_discovery_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, expensive, or rate-limited. The return fields are listed, but behavioral aspects like data freshness or caching are 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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word serves a function with no redundancy or wasted text.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it still provides a useful summary of what is returned. However, it lacks context on data freshness, scope (e.g., time range), or whether results are cached.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist.

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 gets aggregate statistics about the discovery pipeline and lists specific metrics returned (total leagues, breakdowns, velocity, coverage). It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pipeline_overview or get_data_coverage.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only notes 'No parameters needed', implying it is a simple call, but does not clarify when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_pipeline_overview or get_trending_discoveries.

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