query_video_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a useful behavior: column names follow the actual CSV schema and metric must be an existing column, alerting the agent to dynamic data-dependent validation. However, it does not describe error behavior, read-only guarantees, or how the rule/format/page_size settings affect the response.

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 short and has no filler, but it is undersized for a tool with 8 parameters and 11 sibling tools. It is concise without being appropriately informative, and it lacks any structural organization or key usage context.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still omits critical context: when to use this tool instead of aggregate_stats/sql_query, how rule/page_size/format interact, and what happens when invalid column names are supplied. It is a minimal skeleton rather than a complete tool definition.

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 all 8 parameters already have descriptions with defaults and constraints. The description adds essentially no new parameter meaning; its 'metric must exist' caveat merely restates the schema description for metric. 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?

The description says "查询统计数据" (query statistics data), which is a verb plus resource, but it is too generic and does not specify what kind of video statistics are returned or how they are computed. It does not meaningfully distinguish the tool from siblings like aggregate_stats or data_insights.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named or excluded. The note about metric being an existing CSV column is a validation constraint, not a usage guideline. Given sibling tools like sql_query and aggregate_stats, an agent has no basis to decide when to choose this tool.

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