db_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'in the tree' and the overview-check framing, but nothing about return shape (e.g., a per-type count mapping) or whether it includes soft-deleted/private objects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource list and tailed with the purpose. The nine-item enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing since it defines the result's coverage.

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 zero-parameter, read-only counting tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; the only minor gap is not hinting at the response shape (counts keyed by object type), which is easily inferred from the enumeration.

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; per the rubric an empty schema sets a baseline of 4.

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?

States a specific verb (counts) and enumerates exactly which resources are counted (people, families, events, citations, sources, repositories, places, media, notes), which distinguishes it from aggregation siblings like verify_tree or run_report. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just below top marks.

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 trailing phrase 'A quick health/overview check' implies when an agent would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternatives (e.g., query_records, verify_tree) are named for deeper analysis.

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