netintel_text_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value by disclosing 'deterministic, no LLM, no API key' and 'instant', setting cost and latency expectations. However, it says nothing about text-size limits, handling of empty/malformed input, or failure behavior, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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 metric list is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, but the description terminates in a dangling ellipsis ('For agents sizing content…'), indicating an incomplete sentence and lost guidance. Otherwise efficient for the information conveyed.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates exactly what the return includes, which effectively substitutes for a missing output schema. The main omissions are input size limits and the truncated usage clause.

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 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description is the only source of semantics. It implies the input is raw text but adds no constraints (max length, encoding, whether HTML is stripped), so the gap is only partly compensated by the self-evident parameter name.

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 (computes statistics) and resource (text), then enumerates the exact metrics returned (characters with/without spaces, words, unique words, sentences, paragraphs, averages, longest word, reading/speaking time). This enumeration alone separates it from siblings like netintel_text_summarize or netintel_text_chunk, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the truncated fragment 'For agents sizing content…', which is cut off mid-thought and gives no complete when-to-use condition. There is no guidance on when not to use it, and no routing to alternatives such as netintel_text_summarize (for meaning) or netintel_text_chunk (for splitting).

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