fcrm dashboard stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations by disclosing the required capability (fcrm_view_dashboard) and that it is enforced by ReportPolicy::verifyRequest(), which tells the agent a permission gate exists.

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 core content is front-loaded in a single enumeration sentence, which is efficient. The trailing capability/policy block is somewhat noisy and partially duplicates the annotation-level safety info, but it is short and does not bury the main 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned statistics, and it discloses the authorization requirement. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only routing guidance against the sibling analytics tools is missing.

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% and the single 'account' parameter is documented in the schema as a private account profile label rather than a tenant/provider ID. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (overall dashboard statistics) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (active contacts, campaigns, emails sent, automations, onboarding, quick links, recent items, recommendations). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest analytics siblings such as fcrm_automation_report or fc_analytics_overview.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling analytics/report tools. The only usage-adjacent information is the required-capability note, which is an authorization constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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