get_app_field_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive statistics' but doesn't specify what types of statistics (e.g., counts, averages, distributions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data analysis.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get comprehensive statistics'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' entail or the format of the return value, which is critical for a statistical tool. With 2 required parameters and no behavioral context, more detail is needed for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'app_id' and 'field_name'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying statistics are for a specific field in an app, which is already inferred from the parameter names. This meets the baseline 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive statistics for a field'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_app_field' or 'get_app_details', which might retrieve related but different information about fields or apps.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_app_field' and 'get_app_details', it's unclear if this tool is for statistical summaries, usage metrics, or other field-specific data, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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