get_stats_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool searches for statistical table information and describes parameters, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond start_position and limit parameters), or what happens when no results match. The description is functional but lacks behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and efficiently organized. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The only minor inefficiency is the Japanese-to-English transition in parameter names, but this doesn't significantly impact usability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics, which is crucial given the poor schema coverage. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and tool purpose. The main gap is lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements (YYYY for years, YYYY-YYYY for ranges, 2-digit codes, 5/8-digit codes), defaults (limit defaults to 10), and constraints (maximum 100 for limit). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states '統計表情報を検索する' (search for statistical table information), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_stats_data (which retrieves actual data) and get_stats_fields (which gets field information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_stats_by_keyword, which appears to serve a similar search 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 multiple sibling tools like get_stats_list_csv, get_data_catalog, and search_stats_by_keyword, there's no indication of when this specific search/list tool is preferred over others. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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