get_database_stats

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond a basic read operation. With no annotations provided, it fails to mention non-obvious aspects such as whether the data is cached, return format, or any side effects. It merely lists some output fields.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without any superfluous information. Every part is informative.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning that the output is aggregate-only and not filtered by user or workspace.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The absence of parameters is reflected in the empty input schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the base score for zero parameters is 4.

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 it retrieves overall statistics about the SEC advisor database and explicitly lists the types of statistics included (total advisors, active count, firms, disclosure rates, top states). This is distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual firms, risk profiles, or specific advisor lookups.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not clarify that this tool is for aggregate stats while get_firm_info is for individual firm details. The agent must infer usage from context.

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