get_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that statistics are retrieved, without explaining the optional 'type' parameter, return format, or any other behavioral aspects.

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 a single short sentence, making it very concise with no unnecessary words. However, the brevity results in under-specification, omitting details about parameters and behavior, which balances to an average score.

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?

Even though the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is too vague. It does not clarify what statistics are offered or how the 'type' parameter affects results, leaving significant gaps in understanding for an agent.

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 includes an optional 'type' parameter, but the description does not mention it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails to provide any meaning or usage for the parameter.

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 clear verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('법령 데이터 통계' - statistics of law data), effectively communicating the tool's core function. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_law or list_laws, though it lacks specificity about what kinds of statistics are returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over sibling tools.

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