get_factcheck_stats

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds context about the aggregation dimensions, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or whether all fact-checks are included. It adds some value beyond annotations but not full transparency.

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 concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the key information about aggregated statistics. It is efficient but could include a bit more context about the scope (e.g., time period) without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists the breakdown dimensions but does not indicate the output format (counts, percentages, etc.) or any potential filters. It is adequate but could be more complete given the lack of output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single limit parameter, which has a French description in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the description adds no value here, resulting in baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool provides aggregated statistics of fact-checks broken down by verdict, party, source, and top politicians. It distinguishes from siblings like list_factchecks (which lists individual fact-checks) and search_politicians (which searches for politicians), though the verb 'get' is generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes the output content without suggesting use cases or exclusions. Siblings include many fact-check and statistical tools, so guidance would be helpful.

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