get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the purpose but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether data is aggregate or detailed. For a statistics tool, users need to know if mutations are possible (they are not), but this is not clarified.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. However, it might be too brief, sacrificing useful detail, but it earns points for efficiency.

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 simplicity of the parameters (no enums, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about the output format or what specific statistics are returned, which is crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. A more complete description would outline expected return values.

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 input schema documents all three parameters (group_id, date_from, date_to) with clear descriptions (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD format). The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'for the specified period,' which aligns with the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 VK community statistics for a specified period, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on wall posts, users, groups, etc. However, it does not specify what type of statistics (e.g., reach, engagement) which would enhance clarity.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description—statistics for a community over a time range. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). The sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely, but better guidelines would improve the score.

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