get_department_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of output fields (number of officials, dominant party, distribution) adds valuable context about what the tool computes. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as data freshness or computational rules, which is acceptable given the annotations cover safety.

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 compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. Every word is meaningful, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (read-only, one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key output fields. However, it lacks explicit mention that statistics are aggregated across all departments (implied by no department parameter) and does not describe any pagination or data range, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with one optional enum parameter 'filter' well-documented in the schema. The main description does not mention this parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states it provides political statistics by department, including number of elected officials, dominant party, and party distribution. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deputies_by_department which list deputies rather than aggregated stats. However, it does not specify whether statistics are for all departments or require a department identifier, which is unclear since the schema has no department parameter.

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. Among siblings, get_deputies_by_department could be used for a list of deputies, and list_parties for party details, but this tool is for aggregated stats. No explicit when/when-not or comparison is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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