get_statistics_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data aggregation method, time period coverage, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens with missing data. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to clarify return structure.

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 very brief (two short sentences), but lacks necessary detail. While concise in length, it fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't referenced, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the aggregated nature, return format, or parameter usage, forcing reliance on an external tool reference.

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 0% description coverage across all 5 parameters. The description only says 'Args mirror `get_statistics_day`', which adds no specific meaning for `entity`, `ids`, `date_from`, `date_to`, or `metrics`. An agent would need to look up the other tool to infer meaning.

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 states it provides 'Summary (aggregated) statistics for the period', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also references 'Args mirror `get_statistics_day`' to indicate parameter similarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `get_statistics_breakdown` or `get_statistics_day`, leaving some ambiguity.

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 only usage guidance is that arguments mirror `get_statistics_day`, which implies the same parameters but for aggregated data. There is no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_statistics_day` or `get_statistics_breakdown`, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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