group_statistics_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get item-count statistics' indicates a read operation and reveals the output is counts grouped by label, but it does not mention return structure, handling of zero-count labels, or access requirements. The behavior is mostly clear but not richly detailed.

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 conveys the purpose and the grouping dimension without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity: no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the core result (item counts per label), which is likely enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but those are largely inferable from 'item-count statistics broken down by label'.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('item-count statistics broken down by label'), clearly defining what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like group_statistics_locations and group_statistics_purchase_price by specifying the label grouping dimension.

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 phrase 'broken down by label' implies the tool is for label-level item count analysis, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related group_statistics variants. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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