get_error_rate_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context: the tool is enterprise-gated and returns 403 on non-Enterprise plans. This is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage differentiation, third notes enterprise restriction. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given high parameter count (29), rich schema, and presence of output schema, the description covers the main output elements, sibling differentiation, and access restriction. Could mention aggregation granularity or time-series specifics, but output schema likely covers that. Slightly incomplete but mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, but the schema already documents all 29 parameters. No extra value added for parameters, but baseline is acceptable.

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 it retrieves error-rate time-series data with summary and per-bucket percentages, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_error_analytics by noting that tool gives absolute counts. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: use for reliability and SLA trends, and suggests an alternative (get_error_analytics) for absolute error counts. Also notes enterprise gating and potential 403 error. Could add more explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling comparison is strong.

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