trust_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that this is a pure reporting call returning counts and class breakdowns, which implies read-only and no side effects. It says nothing about freshness, scope (global vs per-store), or cost, leaving those unstated.

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?

A single compact fragment with no filler, and the key information (what counts come back) is front-loaded. It reads as a terse label rather than a full sentence, which is acceptable for a trivial tool.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place return contents can be described, and it enumerates the five counter categories. For a zero-argument read tool that is nearly complete, though it omits any note on result shape or recency.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The listed fields are return values rather than inputs, so no parameter semantics are missing.

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 names the resource (antibody store) and the exact facts returned (total, active, dormant, expired, classes), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools that verify claims, check injection, add antibodies, or run a demo. The verb is only implied by the noun 'statistics', so it is clear but not crisply stated.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer that this is the read-only reporting tool from the word 'statistics' alone.

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