lpm_pool_stats

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it presents a per-package breakdown of installs, share percentage, and estimated earnings. It also notes authentication needs. No destructive actions are implied, and the behavior is transparent for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and details the output in the second sentence. Every piece of information is useful and concise.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it returns (earnings estimate, per-package breakdown with installs, share %, earnings) and a requirement (authentication). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no redundant information, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameter documentation burden.

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 pool revenue sharing earnings estimates for the current month with a per-package breakdown. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lpm_package_info or lpm_search.

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 mentions authentication is required but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for revenue stats, and the specificity of the purpose provides sufficient guidance.

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