services_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — just a restatement of the HTTP route — and says nothing about response shape, units, sampling behavior, or limits despite `resolution` implying aggregated buckets.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose. The bare endpoint line earns little, since it duplicates information the agent already has from the tool name and schema, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize much.

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?

This is a five-parameter, all-required stats query with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. Nothing is said about date-window formatting, resolution units, return granularity, or expected response contents, which leaves real ambiguity for a caller.

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 should compensate, and it only partially does: the route template implies `id` is a service identifier and `statType` is a metric, though the enum values are already in the schema. The two most ambiguous required parameters, `fromDate`/`toDate` and especially `resolution` (unit and allowed values), get no explanation at all.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get service usage stats") plus the underlying route, so an agent knows it retrieves usage time-series for a service. It offers no differentiation from the many sibling `services_*` read tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call this versus other service reads, no note that all five parameters are mandatory, and no hint about how to choose a resolution or date window. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone.

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