stats_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavior beyond being an overview. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or what kind of output the agent can expect.

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 text is short but not effectively concise; it is under-specified. A good concise description would be brief yet informative, whereas this omits critical details about the tool's purpose and output.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide sufficient context on its own, but it fails to do so. It is unclear what counts and trends are being reported, how the window affects results, and what the return value looks like. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 schema documents the single 'window' parameter with 100% coverage, including an enum and a brief description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 'Basic counts and trends' is vague; it does not specify what entity or domain the counts and trends refer to. It is not a clear verb+resource statement and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_actor_stats or recurrent_patterns.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusion criteria, or preferred alternatives.

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