get_platform_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states access level ('Public') and a rate limit, and it describes the output contents (three specific stat types). While it does not detail response structure or side effects, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema alone.

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 sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Platform stats') and lists specific data points. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. This is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only stats tool, the description covers the essential facets: what data is returned (three metrics), access level (public), and a limitation (rate-limited). It omits response format and aggregation period, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete for an agent to 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully comprehensive (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract from parameter 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 identifies the tool as returning platform-level stats, enumerating the specific metrics included (completed scans, summed signal counts, distinct validated tickers). Though it uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, the resource and scope are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools that focus on individual tickers or user data.

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 mentions 'Public (rate-limited)', which provides context on access and constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context mainly implicit from the tool's name and stats-oriented content.

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