lokal

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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, or what format the statistics are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the specific statistics it returns. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what statistics are retrieved but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format. For a read-only statistics tool, this provides the core information but leaves practical implementation details unclear.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it provides context about what statistics are retrieved. This meets the baseline expectation 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Lokal platform statistics'), listing the types of statistics returned (total agents, cities covered, interactions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on platform-wide statistics rather than discovery, information, or search functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 its siblings (lokal_discover, lokal_info, lokal_search). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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