get_alio_statistics

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. The description describes the output but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any related side effects. The name implies read-only, but explicit statement would improve transparency. No contradictions.

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 concise, using a single sentence to convey the tool's purpose and usage context. It is front-loaded with the tool's function. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for purpose and usage.

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 the tool's moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the statistics offered (distributions, revision frequency) and the use case. It does not detail the output format but is sufficient for most agents. Could mention that it returns aggregate numbers.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no further parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema. Thus, the description is adequate but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides an overview of collected ALIO data including total counts, distributions, and average revision frequency. It distinguishes from specific regulation/institution tools by offering aggregated statistics. The verb 'get' and resource 'alio_statistics' with the context of data scope gauging makes it specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when LLM needs to gauge data scope before answering or when user judges reliability. This gives clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would strengthen the guideline.

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