get_stats_year_by_year

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the GET endpoint, such as scope, auth needs, or what the stats represent. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted prose. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so it earns only a middle score.

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 many similar siblings and an ambiguous 'stats' scope, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether this is global, per-user, or library-specific stats, nor when an agent should choose it over get_me_stats_year_by_year or list_stats_server. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the usage gap remains significant.

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 must compensate. It only repeats the parameter name and notes it is a path parameter, which is already visible in the endpoint. It does not explain accepted year formats, meaning, or constraints beyond the schema's 'string' type.

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 a specific action ('Get stats year') and identifies the resource via the endpoint path 'GET /api/stats/year/{year}'. This is clear enough to know the tool retrieves stats for a year, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_me_stats_year_by_year or list_stats_server.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many related stats tools in the sibling list. It only shows the endpoint and argument, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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