spv_documents_stats

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects, or if it requires any prior setup. Without annotations, the description should mention these details for full transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs all relevant information about the tool's output without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool returns: total, unread, PDFs still to download, breakdown by category and severity, and the lists themselves. This is complete enough for an agent to understand the expected result.

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 schema covers the single parameter companyId with a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema coverage is 100%.

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: to provide counts for the SPV inbox archive, listing specific metrics like total, unread, and PDFs still to download. The verb 'Counts' is specific and the resource is clearly identified.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like spv_documents_list or spv_documents_get. It lacks explicit context about the appropriate scenario for this statistics tool.

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