get_database_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the nature of the operation ('Get', 'Returns') and the broad output contents, which implies a read-only stats call. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth expectations, or any caveats about the statistics.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is first, followed by a useful output summary. Every sentence 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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it says what the tool does and what the output contains. It is slightly light on when to use it versus siblings, but that is already captured in the usage-guidelines dimension.

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 zero parameters, and the schema provides no semantic load. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on what the call returns.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get summary statistics about the opinion database.' It also previews the exact contents (counts, date range, top authors), making the purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the search/lookup siblings.

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 given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling search/lookup tools. The description implies it is for aggregate database-level stats, but it never states exclusions or names alternatives.

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