get_monthly_running_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the data source ('based on recent activities') and the windowing semantics ('calendar-ish months'), but discloses nothing about aggregation method, permissions, or how partial months are handled.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally sound. However, the hedge word 'calendar-ish' undermines precision for an API contract and doesn't earn its place in a spec.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and a one-parameter read tool is simple. Still, the core ambiguity with get_running_summary and the vague windowing term leave the agent without enough to call this confidently over its sibling.

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%, so the single 'months' parameter (with default, min, max) is already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'last N months' merely echoes the parameter and adds no format or interpretation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (monthly running stats) and scope (last N months), but 'Monthly running stats' largely restates the tool name rather than adding a distinguishing verb+resource framing. It never differentiates from the sibling get_running_summary, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives. Given the very close sibling get_running_summary, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the agent to guess which one to call.

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