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

Annotations cover the read-only profile, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the bucket granularity per range (1m/10m/1h) and the fact that only buckets with samples are returned, which affects downstream zero-filling assumptions. It also discloses the required scope (vms.read), a permission signal not present in 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?

Dense single sentence, front-loaded with the metric list followed by ranges and scope; every clause carries information. It is a bit semicolon-heavy and reads as a spec line rather than prose, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned metrics is the main substitute for return-value documentation and does that job. What is missing is anything about result shape/ordering or whether the range parameter defaults when omitted.

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 only 50% – the 'database' param is documented in the schema but 'range' has just an enum with no explanation. The description compensates by explaining what each range value means in terms of bucket resolution and window length, which is exactly the missing semantic layer.

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?

Names the exact metrics returned (CPU, memory, connections, commits/commands per minute) and the resource (database), with the supported time ranges spelled out. An agent can distinguish this from get_vm_metrics or get_load_balancer_metrics purely from the resource and metric list.

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?

Usage is only implied by the nature of the tool (observability of a database); there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of when to prefer get_database or get_slow_queries, and no stated prerequisites beyond the permission scope.

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