get_incident_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. It states the tool returns aggregate statistics, implying a read-only query, but does not disclose latency, authorization needs, or any side effects. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then specifies breakdowns. Perfectly concise.

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 no output schema or annotations and zero parameters, the description is largely complete. It outlines the key outputs (total counts, breakdowns). Could mention that the output is a flat dictionary of counts, but not strictly necessary for this simple tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by enumerating the returned breakdowns (severity, country, evidence source), which informs the agent about the output beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate statistics') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_incident_detail' which returns individual incidents. It specifies the breakdowns (severity, country, evidence source) making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use alternatives, the description implies usage for aggregate statistics rather than individual incident details. The context of siblings like 'get_incidents_since' and 'get_active_incidents' provides clarity, but no explicit when-not or alternatives.

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