Get Document Stat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' wording is fully consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds only thin context (that the result is a 'summary') but nothing about response content, pagination, or access requirements. With the annotations carrying the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 four-word sentence is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words, with no structural flaws. It is efficient but so terse that it sacrifices the detail needed to disambiguate from transkribus_doc_get_stats, so it stops short of 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?

The tool is simple — two fully documented required parameters and a complete annotation profile — so an agent can correctly invoke it. However, with no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the 'statistics summary' contains, and it does not; it also leaves the near-identical sibling ambiguity unresolved. These are clear gaps, but the tool's simplicity keeps it minimally viable.

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% — both parameters (id: 'Document ID', collId: 'Collection ID') are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage 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 states a real verb and resource ('Get document statistics summary'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'statistics summary' is vague about what statistics are included (pages? transcripts? words? statuses?), and the sibling list contains transkribus_doc_get_stats, a one-character-different tool with an apparently identical purpose, which the description does nothing to distinguish.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With numerous stats-related siblings (transkribus_doc_get_stats, transkribus_stat_get_coll_stats, transkribus_coll_user_stats, transkribus_stat_get_storage_usage), an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over them.

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