get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'database counts,' suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose data freshness, permissions, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without any redundant wording. Every word 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure. It lists the categories (job status, type, salary, conferences) but does not specify whether counts are grouped, combined, or presented as a structured object. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response format.

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 tool has no parameters, with an empty input schema. Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 that the tool provides aggregate counts for jobs and conferences, with breakdowns by status, type, and salary. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Returns') but is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that list or search individual records.

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 implies the tool is for summary statistics rather than fetching individual records, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like search_jobs or fetch_conferences. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are provided.

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