get_key_statistics

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

Even though annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful context: page size cap of 20, preservation of missing periods/currency/source dates, and the disabled mode with AUTH_REQUIRED failures. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays compact. 'Mode: disabled' and 'Research is disabled' are mildly redundant, but the information density is high and every sentence contributes.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description covers purpose, filter, pagination, and the current auth/disabled state. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the call and its constraints, though it does not suggest alternative tools.

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 schema already documents query and symbol; the description adds that filtering is by label/ID and that pages hold up to 20 records, giving page some extra context. It does not deeply explain page-number semantics, so it adds only moderate value 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read key statistics for a confirmed symbol') and adds the label/ID filter, clearly identifying the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and filter are distinct enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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?

'Confirmed symbol' implies a prerequisite and gives an implied use case, and the disabled-mode warning tells the agent that calls will fail with AUTH_REQUIRED. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_companies or list_metrics, so it stops short of clear routing guidance.

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