remnawave_subscription_request_history_get_stats

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

The description only states '(read)', implying no side effects, but fails to disclose auth needs, rate limits, or any behavioral details. The presence of mutation-related parameters (mutationApproved, confirmToken) is unexplained, creating ambiguity.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the resource name, but the single sentence does not earn its place due to lack of useful detail.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of any parameter, the output format, or how to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds no information about the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). Without explanation, the agent cannot determine how to use them correctly.

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 'Remnawave subscription_request_history.get_stats (read)' clearly identifies the resource (stats of subscription request history) and indicates a read operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'remnawave_subscription_request_history_list' by focusing on stats, but does not specify what stats are included.

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 vs alternatives like remnawave_subscription_request_history_list or other stats endpoints. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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