Get chat stats item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the lookup is scoped to a single item in a category; it does not describe return shape, pagination, or other behavioral details. A 3 is appropriate with annotations carrying the safety burden.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately terse for a simple read-only lookup, though extremely minimal.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool does and scopes it to one item. However, with no output schema and no usage routing, it leaves the agent to infer when to choose it and what the response contains.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema with examples. The description reinforces the 'item' concept but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get the chat stats for one item in a category') and gives examples that clarify scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling chatstats tools such as chatstats_get or chatstats_stats, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other chatstats siblings, nor any when-not conditions. The examples ('one emote or one chatter') hint at the use case but do not tell an agent how to choose this over alternatives.

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