Get User Agent Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the tool is for analysis and detection, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, aggregation details, or any potential performance implications. It does not contradict 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (5 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It does not explicitly detail the return format, but the description implies aggregated client counts, which is enough for an agent. Sibling context further clarifies its niche.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes request distribution by browser/user-agent, distinguishing it from siblings like get_ip_summary. It specifies the resource (user agents) and the action (analyze distribution), with concrete output examples (which clients generate traffic).

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?

Provides clear use cases: understanding client demographics and detecting crawlers. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like get_visitor_stats.

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