neurover_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say how the 'period' is expressed (presumably inside the free-form filters object), whether results are paginated, or what statistics are returned, which matters for a tool with no output 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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but its brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. It could easily carry one more clause about the filters/period contract without becoming bloated.

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 tool with a nested free-form filters object, four undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: the agent does not know the shape of filters or what the returned statistics look like. The annotations cover only safety, leaving the functional contract unstated.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It implies modelId ('по моделям') and some period filter, but leaves 'page', 'account', and the open-ended 'filters' object completely unexplained — notably whether the period and grouping actually belong in filters.

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 sentence names the resource (generation statistics) and the aggregation dimension (by model, over a period), which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as neurover_generations, neurover_charges, or neurover_account_overview, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one yields model-level statistics.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. account or auth selection), and no pointer to an alternative tool for per-generation listings or billing data. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the phrase 'statistics ... for a period'.

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