descriptive_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions a $0.001 USDC cost, which is a behavioral detail, but omits core behaviors like whether it is read-only, what it returns, how it handles invalid inputs, or any side effects. The tool's safety profile and output behavior are completely undisclosed.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The cost information is present but does not contribute to understanding the tool's function. Key operational details are missing, making it unhelpfully brief.

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 mathematical tool with no output schema, the description completely fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation) or how the input data should be structured. It also lacks any example or further context. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has a single 'params' property described only as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no useful information. The description does not compensate by explaining what keys or values should be passed, such as an array of numbers. Though schema coverage is 100%, that coverage is meaningless because the description is a placeholder, and the tool description adds nothing to clarify parameters.

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 'descriptive statistics' essentially restates the tool name with no verb or resource. Adding 'Finance & Math tool' is generic and does not specify what the tool actually does, such as calculating mean, median, or standard deviation. This is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. It does not mention input requirements, expected datasets, or how it differs from other math/finance tools in the sibling list. There is no context for the agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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