dosare_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the returned data (properties, contracts, monthly rent, etc.) and mentions the CSV output option via a parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, limits, or prerequisites, which is a moderate gap for a reporting tool.

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 informative but slightly verbose; it lists multiple aspects of the portfolio in a structured way. Each clause adds value, and the main content is front-loaded. It is not overly wasteful, though it could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It does so by enumerating the data categories (properties, contracts, monthly rent, expected vs declared rent). It also mentions the CSV export option. It does not detail pagination or output structure, but for a stats/reporting tool, the description is fairly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters (companyId and csvOutFile), so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters, which is acceptable given the high coverage, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 provides a rental portfolio overview including properties, tenants, rent, periods, states, and linked declarations, and explicitly answers a common question ('how much rent did I collect and declare last year?'). It is specific about the resource (rental portfolio) and distinguishes itself from sibling dosare_* tools that handle file operations and actions rather than reporting.

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 gives a clear use case ('Answers how much rent did I collect and declare last year?'), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer this is the reporting/statistics tool for rental portfolios, distinct from the many management-focused siblings.

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