legal_consent_log_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (manage_options), the dependency on legal_put_consent's log_enabled flag, the Datenschutz 'einwilligungsnachweis' prerequisite, and a minimum plugin version. It stops short of describing behavior when logging is off (empty result vs error) or result shape detail.

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 core aggregation purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by range/limit rules and prerequisites. It is somewhat dense with prerequisite prose (Datenschutz section name, version pin) but each sentence conveys operative constraints.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, required permission, dependency/enablement conditions, and range limits, and it is self-sufficient for correct invocation. Return-value formatting is not spelled out, but the grouping dimensions are stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the 366-day cap on from/to (absent from the schema) and clarifies the optionality/defaults. This is meaningful additive context beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 (aggregate) and resource (consent decision counts) with dimensions (by action and banner_version) and scope (day range). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like legal_consent_log_get/export by being a stats aggregation, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: requires manage_options, defaults to last 30 days, cannot exceed 366 days, and logging must be enabled via legal_put_consent's log_enabled. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over legal_consent_log_get/export, so it falls short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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