get_stats

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the shape of the result (which aggregate dimensions are returned), which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or is scoped to a specific campaign.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and then lists outputs. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only aggregate tool with fully documented parameters but no output schema, enumerating the computed dimensions is exactly what an agent needs to know the return shape. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus sibling listing/retrieval tools.

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 four parameters documented (since, campaign, targetRole, employmentType) including an enum. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb (Compute) and resource (campaign statistics) and then enumerates the exact breakdowns produced: status, role, site, employment type, funnel, interview entries, and this-month delta. No sibling tool (get_campaign, list_campaigns, read_campaign_config) does aggregation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 says what is computed but never states when to reach for this tool rather than get_campaign, list_applications, or aggregate_retros, nor does it mention any prerequisites. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all.

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