sd_get_correspondent_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates the read-only nature implicitly via 'statistics' and 'overview', and describes the return format. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations such as how results are ordered or what 'most important' means.

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 well-organized with PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Args, and Returns sections, making it scannable. Each section adds essential information with no redundant filler.

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 the tool's simple two-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameters, and return structure. It leaves some ambiguity about the meaning of 'most important' and the sorting order, but overall is sufficient.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains 'year' as an optional filter and 'min_letters' as a minimum count, adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions. It could be clearer whether min_letters applies to total letters or each direction.

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 it provides statistics about correspondents for network analysis, with a purpose of giving an overview of the most important correspondents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_get_collection_stats and sd_search_documents by focusing on correspondent-level aggregates.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit scenarios, such as user asking about someone's importance or most frequent correspondents, and for quantitative analyses. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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