listDevicesStats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'queries statistics' (implying a read operation), it does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or side effects. It also does not mention any required permissions, rate limits, or response structure. The description adds transparency about fuzzy search and filtering but is insufficient for a complete behavior profile.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose and capabilities (pagination, filtering), and the second elaborates on the fuzzy search and filter options. Every part is essential and no word is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description should provide guidance on return values. It only says 'statistics', which is vague. The tool has 9 optional parameters, and the description covers most but does not mention any output structure, sorting, or how pagination is handled in results. This is a notable gap for a query tool with moderate complexity.

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 schema has 9 parameters with only 22% coverage (page and pageSize have descriptions). The description explains the purpose of 6 parameters: searchMacs, searchNames, searchModels, searchSns (fuzzy search) and filterTag, filterDeviceSeriesType (filtering). It compensates well for the low schema coverage by mapping these to user-facing concepts. The customHeaders parameter is not mentioned, but the overall value added is significant.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Query' and the resource 'statistics for global adopted devices', with explicit mention of pagination and filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listDevices (which lists devices without stats) and searchDevices (which searches but doesn't mention stats).

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 indicates the tool supports fuzzy search and filtering, implying use for querying device statistics with pagination. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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