get_query_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but fails to describe what happens when parameters are omitted (e.g., if requestId is absent, does it aggregate over all requests?), any rate limits, or response size. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections. However, given the simplicity of the tool, the conciseness is suitable.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of stats, a summary) and how parameters affect the result. It does not address the return format or differentiate from siblings. The schema covers parameter names, but the behavioral context is missing, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning; it doesn't clarify how parameters interact (e.g., whether 'from' and 'to' are required together) or provide examples. Schema descriptions already handle basic semantics, so no extra value from the tool description.

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 specifies verb 'Get' and resource 'aggregate query statistics' with scope 'for a request', clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like 'get_queries' which retrieves individual queries, or 'analyze_slow_queries' which focuses on performance issues. However, it could be more specific about the types of statistics (e.g., count, duration, errors).

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Given many related tools (e.g., 'get_queries', 'analyze_slow_queries'), explicit comparisons or when-not-to-use conditions are missing. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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