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

The description reveals that an API key is required, which is a behavioral constraint not captured in the input schema. However, it does not disclose what the scan statistics contain (e.g., time range, aggregation), whether the call is read-only, or what happens if the key is invalid. Since annotations are not provided, the description carries the full burden, and additional context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and a critical requirement. Every word is informative, and there is no wasted verbiage. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'scan statistics' means (e.g., count, dates, devices), which could leave an agent guessing. A bit more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'The dynamic code id.' The description adds no further detail about this parameter or its format (e.g., is it a UUID?). It does not explain how the id relates to the scan statistics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'scan statistics for a dynamic QR code'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_qr' (which likely gets the QR code details) and 'list_dynamic_qr' (which lists codes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other scan-related tools that might exist.

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 states a requirement ('Requires an OpenQR API key'), which implies when the tool can be used (only with a valid key). It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dynamic_qr' or 'list_dynamic_qr', nor does it mention any limitations or exclusions.

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