get_link_stats

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that results include country/device/referrer/daily breakdowns, which is useful return context, but it is vague ("the usual") and omits defaults, limits, or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by parameter and return details. "The usual" is the only slightly wasteful phrase, but overall there is little to trim.

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 statistics tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about the returned shape (totals, date defaults, limits). It gestures at breakdowns but stays vague, so the agent can still call it correctly but not predict the response well.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents from/to format as YYYY-MM-DD and clarifies that both are optional, which the bare schema does not; id is left undescribed but is self-evident as the link identifier. Partial compensation merits a 3, not higher.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Click statistics for one link id"), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves analytics for a single link. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_analytics, leaving ambiguity about which stats tool applies when.

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?

It implies use when you have a link id and want clicks, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never mentions the overlapping get_analytics sibling or list_links as alternatives. The agent must infer routing on its own.

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