Thống kê webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what metrics are computed and implies a read-only behavior, but does not mention time range aggregation window, whether stats are real-time, or any side effects. For a stats tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 short and front-loaded with the key metric categories. The bilingual phrasing is slightly redundant, but it does not add significant clutter and remains highly compact.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description provides the essential meaning. However, important context such as default time range, data freshness, and exact response structure is omitted, leaving an agent to guess at operational specifics.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so parameter-level description is not required. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 names a concrete resource (webhook delivery stats) and lists specific metrics: success rate, P95 latency, and error classification. It is clear enough to distinguish from raw webhook_logs and webhook management tools, though it lacks a verb and explicit scope.

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 implies use when aggregated delivery statistics are needed, which separates it from listing, creating, or testing webhooks. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over monapay_webhook_logs or monapay_list_webhooks, leaving the decision to inference.

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