get_duplicate_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It describes what the tool does (computes proportions, shows popular items, gives suggestions) but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or its data scope. The name implies a read operation, but explicit disclosure would be stronger.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a trigger condition, and a bulleted list of features. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: trigger conditions and expected functionality. It could specify whether statistics are system-wide or scoped, but the simplicity of the tool and existence of an output schema make the current description adequately complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose: to get statistical information on duplicate orders. It lists specific capabilities (calculate duplicate rate, show popular duplicates, provide suggestions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_duplicate_orders_by_name or search_all_duplicates by focusing on aggregate statistics rather than individual duplicates.

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 explicitly names trigger phrases ('重複訂單統計', '重複率') that should lead to this tool, providing clear usage contexts. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the trigger guidance is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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