get-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '取得する' (get/retrieve) implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite a 'page' parameter), what format the statistics are returned in, or whether this is a real-time or cached view. For a statistics retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a statistics retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'PV統計情報' (PV statistics) actually contains, the format of the response, whether it's aggregated or detailed data, or any behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limiting. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool is incomplete.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (filter with enum values, page number, sort with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('取得する' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ダッシュボードのPV統計情報' - dashboard PV statistics), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get-user-notes' or 'get-search-history', but the resource specificity is clear enough to differentiate it from most other tools in the list.

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. With siblings like 'get-user-notes', 'get-magazine', 'get-search-history', and various analytics tools, there's no indication of when dashboard PV statistics are appropriate versus other data retrieval tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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