Get reading statistics

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

With no annotations, the description fully defines the tool's behavior by listing the exact output fields. It makes clear this is a read-only stats operation with no side effects, though it does not disclose details like data freshness or authentication prerequisites.

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 front-loads the core purpose and specifies the exact outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It is complete for a personal stats getter, though it could have differentiated from get_reading_progress or get_library_stats.

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, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. Per rubric baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 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 gets the user's personal reading totals, enumerating specific metrics (tracked, started, in-progress, completed counts, mean progress percent). This precise verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reading_progress or get_library_stats.

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 for fetching personal reading statistics, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance or named sibling tools, so usage context is left to inference.

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