registry_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects. While a stats tool is likely safe, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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, consisting of a single fragment listing key metrics. It is front-loaded with 'Database coverage' but lacks a full sentence structure. Every word contributes, but a clearer formulation would improve understanding.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides some context about what the tool returns (date range, counts, parse quality). However, it is vague and does not fully explain the purpose or what 'recent parse quality' means, leaving 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about output content but does not enhance parameter semantics, which are nonexistent. Baseline of 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 lists metrics ('date range', 'event/company counts', 'recent parse quality') but lacks a clear verb or explicit statement of what the tool does. The phrase 'Database coverage' is vague, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'daily_digest' or 'company_history'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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