query_document_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'via SQL' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, or if it has side effects. The description focuses only on output, lacking behavioral context.

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a list of returns. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet format).

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate information by enumerating the returned statistics. It is complete for a simple query tool, though the 'via SQL' phrase is ambiguous without further explanation.

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 has 100% coverage (empty). The description adds value by detailing the statistics returned, which is helpful since no output schema exists. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 aggregates statistics about the document corpus via SQL, listing specific return fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'sql_query', which may serve similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_stats' or 'sql_query'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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