get_reading_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool computes, the all-time vs filtered distinction, the optional date window, average rating, and the need for a numeric user ID. It omits response-shape details, but the key behavioral information is present.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core computation is front-loaded, date examples are compact and illustrative, and the required-ID guidance is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, input semantics, and the prerequisite user look-up. It does not cover every potential edge case or return-value format, but what is provided is sufficient for a correct call.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the since parameter is used, giving concrete examples that map to this year vs this month, and clarifying that user_id is the numeric ID from get_me.

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 verb and resource: it gets reading statistics, specifically total books read all-time and since an optional date, plus average rating per window. It is clear and concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping sibling tools like get_books_read_between.

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 description gives a clear invocation prerequisite: the user's numeric ID, and it points to get_me to find that ID. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the context is understandable and actionable.

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