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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the result is the latest value per metric, which is useful behavioral detail. It does not, however, state return shape, error behavior, or read-only/safety traits beyond what the name implicitly suggests.

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?

One short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded; every word earns its place. There is no padding, repetition, or irrelevant context.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves return formatting and value details unspecified. A short note on the returned structure would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents instance_id with 100% coverage and an example, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable here because nothing is missing from the schema.

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 states a specific resource and operation ('Aktuelle Messwerte einer Instanz') and adds a precise qualifier ('neuester Wert je Messgröße'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from poll_instance, which could also plausibly return current instance data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_metrics_history or poll_instance. The word 'Aktuelle' implies a freshness context, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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