get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the disjoint count invariant (alive_public + alive_private + deleted == total) and the tz effect on the 'today' boundary. It does not state that the operation is read-only/safe or whether results are cached/live, which for a no-annotation tool would have been worth including.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the count invariant, then the parameter nuance. Every sentence carries content; only minor redundancy with the schema on the UTC default keeps it from a 5.

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-optional-parameter aggregate reader with no output schema, the description gives enough: what metrics come back and how the counts partition. Missing only a statement of read-only safety and whether figures are real-time, which would round it out given zero annotation coverage.

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% and the single `tz` parameter is fully documented there, including the silent UTC fallback. The description's mention of the 'today' boundary shift restates what the schema already says, adding no new semantics. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get BrewPage platform-wide usage statistics') and enumerates the returned metrics (page count, file count, storage usage), which is clearly distinct from the publish/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the read-only aggregate nature is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only aggregate-statistics tool versus the per-record getters (get_page, get_json, get_kv). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over those siblings or any exclusions, so it remains inference rather than guidance.

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