im_get_match_statistics

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'Get... statistics', but does not explicitly confirm safety, discuss side effects, or mention any required permissions. For a simple reporting tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It front-loads the essential information (what the tool does) and lists key output metrics. However, some structural separation (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability for an AI agent.

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 three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple tool. It explains the purpose and output fields. However, it does not specify the aggregation level or response format, which would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by listing the types of statistics returned, but does not elaborate on how parameters affect the output or provide additional meaning beyond the schema definitions. 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 it retrieves match rate statistics for a date range, listing specific metrics (total items, matched, unmatched, exceptions, break amounts by currency). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'match statistics'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like im_get_break_details or im_get_unmatched_items, which serve related but distinct 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for obtaining match rate statistics, but lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or conditions where other tools (like im_get_break_details) would be more appropriate.

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