dialog_stats

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting it requires no payload and makes only a single request, which gives useful insight into API call efficiency beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise: two short lines. The first line states the tool's essence and key characteristics, the second lists the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the returned counters anyway, which is helpful. It lacks explicit failure modes or limitations, but for a simple read-only stats tool, the context is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered automatically. The description explicitly states 'без payload' (no payload), reinforcing that no input is required. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools and adds clarity.

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 clearly states that the tool returns dialog counters by type, with a specific list of fields (total, pm_users, bots, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_chats and get_dialogs_by_ids by focusing on aggregated counts rather than raw dialog data, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies efficient usage ('without payload, 1 request') and lists what it returns, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_chats or get_stats. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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