get_topic_group_etelatency

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

No annotations exist. The description only states the purpose without revealing behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what data it returns (e.g., current vs historical latency). The output schema exists but the description does not complement it.

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 (one sentence), but this conciseness comes at the cost of critical information. It is adequately sized for the purpose but lacks necessary details, resulting in under-specification.

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 five parameters including optional time parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the time range parameters or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of context for complex optional parameters.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. Parameters like 'duration', 'from_time', and 'to_time' are unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their usage.

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 states the tool retrieves end-to-end latency for a specific topic and consumer group. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_topic_etelatency' which likely gets latency for a topic only.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_topic_etelatency'. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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