spotting_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses the output dimensions: totals, most common types, and busiest hours. However, it does not mention read-only status, the effect of the days parameter, or any aggregation specifics.

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 concise phrase with no filler, and the colon structure front-loads the purpose before listing output categories. It is efficient, though it omits parameter information that would improve completeness.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what statistics are returned but fails to explain the days parameter, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single parameter 'days' is completely undocumented in the description. An agent cannot determine whether days is a filter, how null is handled, or what units are expected. The description offers no compensation for the schema gap.

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 'How much you've seen: totals, most common types, busiest hours' clearly conveys that this tool reports personal spotting statistics and lists the concrete output categories. It is distinguishable from siblings like global_stats and sighting_history through the personal 'you've seen' framing, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description implies this is for personal summary stats but does not tell the agent how to choose it over global_stats, my_records, or sighting_history.

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