get_users_by_id_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 'me' special value for the id parameter, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what data is returned, whether stats are aggregated, or any rate-limit/auth expectations beyond what annotations imply.

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 very short and front-loads the core verb and endpoint. The Args section is minimal but useful. It loses a point because 'Get stats' is vague and the endpoint line is redundant with the tool name, but there is no wasted prose.

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 stats endpoint with an output schema present, the description should clarify what stats are being retrieved. The tool name and endpoint imply user stats, but the description never says what kind of stats (e.g., ratings, watch time, followers). An agent cannot tell whether this returns counts, distributions, or time series, and the sibling list includes many similar stats tools.

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 does explain the id parameter meaningfully: 'The slug that identifies the user, or "me" for the authenticated user.' This adds real value beyond the bare schema property. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 says 'Get stats' and includes the endpoint path, but it does not specify what kind of stats (e.g., user profile stats, activity counts, ratings breakdown) or what resource the stats pertain to beyond the user id. It is barely more than a restatement of the tool name and endpoint, and it does not distinguish it from the many other get_*_stats sibling tools.

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 like get_movies_by_id_stats, get_shows_by_id_stats, or get_users_by_id_ratings. The only usage hint is the id parameter semantics ('me' for authenticated user), which is a parameter detail rather than a usage guideline.

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