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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are grouped with literal values stripped (normalized query shapes), sorted by total time descending, and include N+1 detection semantics. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and grouping mode, then enumerates outputs and the N+1 special case. No filler, and the parenthetical explanation of N+1 is the one piece of jargon that needed unpacking.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the exact fields returned plus ordering. The remaining gap is scoping behavior (how project/service narrow results) and result size, but for a read-only analytics tool this is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds nothing about the three parameters — no mention of range, project scoping, or what 'service' filters. The schema documents range (default 24h) and project, but service is undocumented in both places, which the description does not 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 names the resource (database queries), the aggregation mode (grouped without literal values), and the metrics returned (calls, p95, failures, example slow/failed traces, N+1 patterns). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like relia_trace or relia_logs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus relia_trace, relia_logs, or relia_vitals — an agent must infer from the metric list that this is for DB query performance investigation. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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