get_decision_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns statistics, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. This is adequate given the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 description clearly explains the purpose and use case, which is sufficient for a simple statistics tool with two optional parameters. The return value is not described, but the annotations (openWorldHint) and the nature of statistics make this acceptable.

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 top-level 'params' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the parameters at all. The inner properties have descriptions, but the description fails to compensate for the top-level lack of documentation.

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 returns statistics on the number of indexed court decisions, specifying the use case for volume and distribution by canton/year. This differentiates it from sibling tools that deal with individual decisions or searches.

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 explicitly mentions the use case 'Mengengerüst und Verteilung nach Kanton/Jahr', which tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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