Get Proposal Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as data freshness, live vs. cached statistics, or whether only active proposals are counted, but it does not contradict the 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?

The description is tightly written: a one-line summary, a clarifying metrics sentence, and concise Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan and front-loaded.

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 read-only statistics tool with two documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description includes essential return elements (total proposals, acceptance rate, average response time) and parameter documentation. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'trends' means or whether stats cover only active proposals, but those are minor gaps.

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 100%: both period_days and response_format already have descriptions, defaults, and constraints in the input schema. The Args section in the description merely paraphrases the schema and adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get statistics about your proposal activity,' then lists concrete metrics (success rate, response times, trends). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposal or list_proposals, 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?

The description implies its use case: when an agent needs aggregate proposal performance metrics, use this tool. It does not explicitly state when to use it instead of list_proposals, get_proposal, or submit_proposal, nor does it mention exclusions, so the guidance is largely left to inference.

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