get_completion_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral detail about the return output ('sorted list with counts and percentages'), but says nothing about permissions, result-size caps, or behavior when a date range is omitted.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then the routing rationale. Nothing is wasted and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly sums up the return value as a sorted list with counts and percentages, and the parameters are fully self-documented in the schema. Minor gaps remain around omitted date-range defaults and any limits, but an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions with defaults and format patterns. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (task completion counts) plus the exact grouping dimensions and date-range scope. It also names the sibling alternative (multiple filter_tasks calls) so an agent can tell this aggregation tool apart from the raw-listing siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case (analytics) and the alternative it beats (multiple filter_tasks calls), which gives clear routing context. No explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the situation that selects this tool is unambiguous.

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