nc_get_vehicle_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose without mentioning that all parameters are optional, that results are aggregated statistics, or that it is a read-only operation. The absence of any behavioral context beyond the basic statement is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and subject. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbosity or redundancy. This is an ideal length and structure for a straightforward tool.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify what the statistics represent (e.g., counts, percentages, breakdowns), what the output format will be, or how to interpret the result. In the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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 each parameter having a meaningful description (e.g., 'Registration year', 'How to group results'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context or examples, but the baseline for full coverage is met. It does not go beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves statistics about registered vehicles in New Caledonia, specifying both the verb (get) and the resource (vehicle statistics). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like population or company statistics, which are clearly different domains.

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 many sibling statistics tools (e.g., population, demographics, company statistics), there is no differentiation of use cases or explicit exclusions. An agent would have to infer applicability solely from the resource name.

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