get_audit_log_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions token auth and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, whether it reflects a time range, or how it relates to get_audit_logs. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 states the operation and the one required condition. Every word earns its place, and no elaboration is needed for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple zero-parameter stats tool, the description is adequately minimal, but it leaves ambiguity about what statistics are computed and what the response contains. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about the returned metrics or scope would make it fully complete.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get statistics of audit logs.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_audit_logs by indicating aggregated statistics rather than raw logs, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify what kind of statistics are returned.

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 only usage guidance is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over get_audit_logs or other siblings. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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