whodb_platform_ontology_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the returned metrics and, importantly, notes that workspace targeting applies per-call 'without changing defaults,' which is a behavioral trait annotations do not express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contract, then usage rationale, then scoping behavior. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned aggregates (min, max, total, non-null counts). The nested workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema, and safety is covered by annotations. Only a brief mention of the shared where grammar's limits is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, where, fields, property, and the nested workspace. The description restates the where grammar and per-call workspace behavior, adding only marginal semantics over what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Return min, max, total and non-null counts for one ontology property.' This is precise enough to separate it from sibling stats/aggregate tools like whodb_platform_ontology_aggregate and whodb_platform_ontology_query, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Cheap way to profile a column before querying' gives a clear when-to-use context that positions it ahead of the query tools. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming the sibling it substitutes for, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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