get_org_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether results are cached, or if there are rate limits. The word 'aggregate' implies computation, but the agent cannot anticipate side effects or response characteristics.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the purpose but provides no structural detail, such as output description or parameter context. Every word could be used more effectively to add information.

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 one ambiguous parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not define the return value shape or the impact of team_slug, leaving the agent to guess. More detail is needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'team_slug' has no description in the schema and 0% coverage. The description does not explain what team_slug does, whether it is optional or required, or how it affects the analytics. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it entirely fails to do so.

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 aggregate organisation analytics' clearly states the verb (Get) and a specific resource (aggregate organisation analytics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_org or list_org_team, which focus on raw data rather than aggregated metrics. However, 'analytics' is broad and could be more specific about what metrics are covered.

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. No mention of conditions that would favor this tool, such as needing rollup statistics or when to prefer get_org/list_org_team. The description leaves the selection entirely to the agent's inference, which is risky given the large sibling list.

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