Company stats

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

The description adds that it is a GET operation with an 'Authorization class: board', which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). However, the annotations already cover the safety profile adequately.

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, with two sentences that convey the essential information (purpose and endpoint). No filler or redundant information.

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 tool has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from clarifying the nature of the stats (e.g., aggregate counts, performance metrics) but is sufficient for a simple read-only 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning, but the baseline is 3 for a parameterless tool.

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 retrieves 'Company stats' and specifies the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint. However, it does not elaborate on what specific statistics are returned, which could be ambiguous, but the verb and resource are clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like pc_get_companies (which likely lists companies) or other stats tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.

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