listDevicesStats

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds pagination and fuzzy-search behavior, but it does not explain the returned statistics, permissions, scope constraints, or limits beyond filtering.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the supported search/filter dimensions. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 an eight-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main filtering and search parameters but leaves the nature of the returned statistics vague. An agent can invoke it, but may not fully know what statistical output to expect.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does so well by mapping fuzzy search to MAC address, name, model, and serial number, and by explaining tag and device-series filtering with the 0/1 series codes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: query statistics for global adopted devices. It implies a statistical view rather than a plain device listing, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as listDevices, searchDevices, or getAllDeviceBySite.

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 explains supported search and filtering capabilities, which implies usage for filtered device-stat queries. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the many sibling device-listing and search tools.

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