statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('listeler') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish ('Günlük istatistikleri listeler'), which is appropriately concise. However, it's not front-loaded with critical context, and the brevity contributes to vagueness rather than clarity, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'statistics' entail, how results are structured, or usage context relative to siblings. This leaves the agent under-informed for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., date formats, enum values, numeric ranges). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying daily statistics, which is partially covered by the date parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description 'Günlük istatistikleri listeler' (Lists daily statistics) states a clear verb ('listeler') and resource ('istatistikleri'), but it's vague about what specific statistics are being listed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'latest_statistics' or 'statistics_by_date', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'latest_statistics' (likely for recent data) and 'statistics_by_date' (possibly for specific dates), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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