Network stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It accurately discloses that this is a read-only reporting tool providing specific metrics. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, whether it requires authorization, or clarify time periods/units for the statistics. Adequate but not extensive coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the subject ('GingerLive's network reach and performance numbers') and uses a colon to introduce a concise list of specific metrics. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity—zero parameters and no output schema—the description covers the key data points a caller would need (the exact metrics returned). Unit/timeframe details would be helpful but aren't critical given the straightforward nature of the aggregate numbers listed.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no actionable information, warranting a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description advantageously lists the exact metrics returned (streamer count, reach, hours, view-through rate), which adds context beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 identifies the subject ('GingerLive's network reach and performance numbers') and lists four specific metrics (streamer count, annual unique reach, hours watched, ad view-through rate). This level of specificity makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent and distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_overview or list_case_studies which address different resources.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. However, the tool name and description make its purpose obvious, so usage is implied rather than stated. This falls short of a 4 because there's no clear context about when to prefer it over adjacent tools like get_company_overview.

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