get_domain_stats

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying the statistical components returned, but it doesn't disclose additional behaviors such as handling of unknown domains or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by an example use case. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read-only stats tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and expected output metrics. Although there is no output schema, the listed metrics give the agent a reasonable expectation. Missing return structure details but adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with a clear description, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema suffices.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed statistics for a domain'), enumerating the exact metrics returned. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_errors_by_domain by framing the output as a trust assessment for domain data.

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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this to assess how trustworthy deadends.dev data is for a domain.' This provides clear context for when to choose this tool over error-listing siblings, though it doesn't mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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