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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it targets containers, returns CPU/memory metrics, and supports two distinct query modes. It does not cover response shape or rate limits, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by 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?

Two focused sentences front-load the core purpose, include the endpoint, and then give mode-specific usage guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 8 parameters, all schema-documented, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It is missing an explicit note about the response format, which matters because there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how queryType relates to the time parameters, and by clarifying that single is the default mode. This helps an agent select and combine parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU / memory metrics for a service's containers'), and includes the REST endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_service or list_services, which are not metric-focused operations.

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 does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but it gives clear invocation guidance by explaining queryType=single for a current snapshot and queryType=range with duration/startTime/endTime. This is sufficient context for deciding how to use the tool, with no conflicting exclusions.

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