Show Project Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the authorization requirements: a token with 'Read detailed stats' or the delegation scope (all:delegate_to_contact_permissions), which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the bulk of the description is padded auth boilerplate with awkward line breaks ('Read-only account operation.'), which costs tokens without adding selection value for the agent.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with a full schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and authorization adequately. It could say what the returned stats contain or their time scope, but that is a minor gap given annotations and schema richness.

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%, so both parameters (account, project_id) are already documented, and the description only restates that project-id identifies the project. It adds no extra meaning such as accepted ID formats or how the account selector interacts with credentials.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (stats) scoped to a single project identified by project-id. This distinguishes it reasonably from sibling stats tools like get_media_stats and get_account_stats, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_media_stats, get_account_stats, or get_account_stats_by_date, despite a crowded stats-tool family. The only selection context given is the required permission scope, which is authorization rather than usage guidance.

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