dashboard_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the concrete output payload, which matters because no output schema exists, and by explaining the period-versus-custom-range selection logic. It omits default-period behavior and any note on response size or performance of the multi-aggregate query.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the payload enumeration and the date-mode rule; nothing is padded or redundant. The long comma-separated list of returned fields is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating return contents, and it covers all four parameters and the company-scoping behavior. The one remaining gap is the undefined default when neither period nor from/to is supplied, which an agent would need to know before calling with zero arguments.

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 each of the four parameters individually documented including the enum for period and the 'used instead of period' precedence. The description restates the same period/range distinction without adding syntax, formatting, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (dashboard statistics) and enumerates the returned aggregates (invoice counts, revenue, monthly breakdown, top clients/products, recent activity, payment summary), so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not differentiate itself from nearby analytical siblings such as reports_sales_analysis, reports_vat, or dosare_stats, which the agent must infer from name alone.

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 establishes context ('for the selected company') and the two operating modes (predefined period vs custom from/to range), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over reports_sales_analysis or reports_vat, nor what happens when no period or dates are supplied despite all four parameters being optional.

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