Get dashboard stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the specific metrics returned and the optional brand scoping behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or performance, but for a read-only stats tool, the additional behavioral context is sufficient.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates purpose, contents, and optional scoping. Every element is necessary, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple read-only stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what metrics it returns, and how scoping works. It is complete for the tool's low complexity and aligns with the quality of high-scoring examples like get_calls.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema documents brand_id as a 'Brand UUID'. The description adds the semantic meaning that the parameter 'optionally scoped to a brand', clarifying that it filters the stats. This goes slightly beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline.

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 function: providing a quick operational overview with specific metrics (active services, total clients, open tickets, unpaid invoices, pending orders). It distinguishes itself from the many list/detail sibling tools by focusing on aggregated dashboard stats rather than individual records.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Quick operational overview') and the optional brand scoping, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'quick overview' framing implies it is a summary alternative to the more detailed list tools, such as list_contracts or count_active_services.

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