kilter_get_angle_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns one row per angle with specific metrics, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't mention any performance implications, aggregation details, or limitations beyond the output structure. For a simple read-only stats tool this is adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects that the description adds some value but doesn't go beyond what annotations imply.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives concrete usage triggers, the third details the output rows. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids any filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 parameterless, read-only statistics tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the output contains, without needing to cover params or return format (since output schema handles that). No gaps exist for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than params. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool returns per-wall-angle statistics for comparison, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('per-wall-angle statistics'). It also lists concrete example queries (comparing angles, hardest/most climbed, flash rate by angle) that distinguish it from sibling stats tools, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool: 'Use when the user asks to compare angles, which angle they climb hardest or most at, or flash rate by angle.' This gives strong contextual triggers, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or state exclusions. That would push it to 5, but the guidance is clear enough for typical routing.

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