minia2a_get_stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation. The description adds context about the kind of statistics returned (services, agents, transaction volume, uptime) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, response format, or any limitations. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not exceptional.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and a use case. The only minor flaw is the vague 'and more', but it does not meaningfully detract from the clarity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only statistics tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call it. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent is left guessing about the exact response shape, and the description does not specify return format or whether the stats represent a snapshot or aggregated totals.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description appropriately clarifies what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which would be irrelevant here.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current platform statistics for minia2a.uk'), and enumerates the kinds of data included. This differentiates it from sibling tools like minia2a_list_services or minia2a_get_service without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 'Useful for understanding the marketplace's scale and health' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can 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.