get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does indicate the return content (table contents or the full report text), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, size/large-result handling, or behavior on an invalid id. Modest value above structured fields.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short examples list for the single argument. No filler. Slightly terse but neither padded nor truncated.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly adequate. It does not address result size/pagination, failure modes for malformed ids, or whether the returned table and report-text cases differ, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only names the property 'Statistics Id' with no description. The description compensates by giving concrete id formats across sources (judicial:, moj:, cprc:, including a nested cprc path), which meaningfully helps an agent construct a valid value.

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 concrete verb+resource: retrieve the content of a statistics table or the full text of a statistics report. It also anchors the input to an id produced by search_statistics, which separates it from the search siblings. It does not, however, explicitly disambiguate from other statistics-family tools such as get_sentencing_statistics.

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 parenthetical '(search_statistics 回傳的 id)' implies the intended workflow: use search_statistics first, then call this with its id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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