get_key_pool_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the listed counts give a good sense of the response content. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects, though for a simple getter these are less critical.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output. It contains no redundant words and is immediately informative, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (counts for available, assigned, revoked, total). It does not explicitly state the response format, but the listed counts provide a clear expectation of the output. It is sufficiently complete for a simple getter tool.

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 the only parameter productId described as 'Product ID'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('key pool statistics'), and the exact data returned (available, assigned, revoked, and total counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_product_keys or add_product_keys by focusing on aggregate statistics rather than individual key management.

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 implies usage when key pool statistics are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is clear from the description, but there is no explicit guidance on scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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