get--v3-stats-total-domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (likely safe), but doesn't specify if it's a query, what data format it returns, any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a stats tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though under-specified.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool effectively. The lack of output schema exacerbates this, as the description doesn't hint at what 'totals' includes.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'event', 'limit', 'resolution', or 'timestamp' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the totals. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'Totals for account domains for a single time resolution' states the tool aggregates domain data over time, but it's vague about what 'totals' means (e.g., metrics like count, volume) and doesn't specify the resource clearly (e.g., 'account domains' vs. 'domain stats'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get--v3-domain-aggregates-countries' by focusing on totals, but the purpose lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention siblings like 'get--v3-stats-total' or 'get--v3-stats-filter', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone. There's no explicit context or exclusions stated.

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