list_history_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time_frame allowed values and filter parameters, which is useful, but it does not describe the response format, aggregation behavior, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only stats call, the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, and the description adds modest context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, the endpoint, and a bullet-style parameter list with brief explanations. No unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details parameters, making it easy to scan.

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 description covers the endpoint and all parameters adequately, and the output schema presumably documents the return structure. However, it does not clarify the scope of 'history' (all history vs. per type), which could matter given the many sibling history tools. It also does not mention any limits or notes on filtering behavior. For a simple stats endpoint with optional filters, this is mostly sufficient but leaves some ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides a concise description for each parameter and explicitly lists the valid values for time_frame, which is not present as an enum in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clear action ('Get history statistics') and a specific resource (history stats endpoint). It is not a tautology and is distinct from the generic 'history' concept, but it does not differentiate from siblings like list_episodes_history or list_movies_history, which might also involve history data. The endpoint path adds specificity, but the scope (all history vs. per-type) is ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists parameters and their meanings, with no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know whether to pick this over list_episodes_history or list_movies_history based on the description alone.

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