get_services_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves statistics (implying a read-only operation) and hints at the type of data returned, but does not specify behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is real-time or cached. The description is consistent with a read operation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get statistics about the Berlin services dataset') and adds clarifying examples ('total count, last update, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and hints at return values, but does not fully explain the output format or provide rich context for a statistical tool, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is applied for tools with no parameters, as there is no gap to compensate for.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics about the Berlin services dataset'), including examples of what statistics are returned ('total count, last update, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual details, lists, or searches, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for comparison.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'statistics about the Berlin services dataset,' suggesting it should be used for aggregated metrics rather than detailed or filtered data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_services' or 'search_ervices,' and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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