admin_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. It reveals that results are 'typically cached for 5 minutes'—useful for agents deciding whether to call this repeatedly. It also discloses the SUPER_ADMIN permission requirement, warning agents without those credentials against calling. The caching note adds real operational context beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence lists the data categories, the second states the access restriction and caching behavior. Every element adds real value, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose first.

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?

This is a simple read-only aggregation tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers what data it returns, its access level, and caching behavior. It is reasonably complete for this level of complexity. It could optionally mention that the output shape is platform-wide (vs per-company), but the absence of an output schema and parameters means the description already covers the essential ground.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, meaning there is nothing for parameters to add. Per the guidelines, a 0-param tool warrants a baseline 4. The description appropriately focuses on what data the tool returns rather than parameter details, which is the correct prioritization.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get platform-wide statistics including user counts, organization metrics, company sync status, invoice totals, and system info.' It enumerates the specific data categories, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin_users and admin_organizations which handle narrower scopes. The 'platform-wide' qualifier and 'SUPER_ADMIN only' restriction make its purpose unmistakable.

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 notes it is 'SUPER_ADMIN only' which provides an access prerequisite—a form of usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling admin tools (admin_users, admin_organizations, system_health, system_version) or state when one would prefer this aggregated view over specific admin endpoints. The access restriction is helpful but the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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