lawink_ontology_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns counts and sync time, and notes scale (2.3M+ relations), which adds context. However, it does not specify if the statistics are real-time or cached, or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with key information. Every word is relevant with no 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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately explains what stats are provided (counts by type, sync time, overall scale). It could mention whether data is live or cached, but overall sufficient for a simple statistics tool.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage; schema does not add meaning. Description adds value by explaining the purpose (statistics by entity/relation type, sync time, overall size). Baseline is 4 for no parameters, and description meets that.

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?

Description clearly indicates it provides ontology graph statistics (counts, sync time) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ontology graph or precedent search. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lawink_ontology_graph or lawink_precedent_relations. The description mentions overall size but fails to specify use cases or exclusions.

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