get_field_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'get', implying a read, but gives no information about aggregation, pagination, output structure, or any side effects. The behavior is entirely opaque.

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 generic sentence that adds no value; this is under-specification, not conciseness. The sentence does not earn its place because it communicates nothing beyond the tool name.

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 the tool has three parameters and a likely output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It gives no indication of the domain, the type of statistics, or how the parameters affect results. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on this description.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'size', 'species', or clarify the meaning of 'field'. A parameter-heavy tool with three parameters and zero semantic guidance is severely lacking.

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 'Get statistics for a specific field' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to indicate what kind of field or statistics, or how it relates to the gene-centric sibling tools. This is a near-tautology, not a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_available_fields or search_by_field. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision framework.

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