get_user_stats_at_venue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses API cost ('1 API call per 25 check-ins scanned') and the limitation that stats are window-based. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with a dash for listing and a parenthetical for caveats. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description explains what is returned (stats list) and the scanning method. It addresses a key limitation. For a stats tool among many siblings, this is sufficient context.

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%, but the description adds context: username defaults to an env var, max_pages default 5 = 125 check-ins, and the scanning process. This enhances understanding of how parameters affect behavior.

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 the resource 'user's check-in stats at a specific venue', listing specific data points (visit count, last visit, average rating, top beers). It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_beer_stats and get_venue_checkins by focusing on aggregated stats at a venue.

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 explains the scanning mechanism and that stats cover only the scanned window, not all time. This implies a trade-off between speed and completeness, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when-not-to-use.

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