bunny_get_shield_metrics

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric categories returned, but gives no behavioral caveats such as date-range defaults, response aggregation, or relationship to the more specific security rule tools.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, scope, and the key returned categories with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only metrics retrieval call, the description plus fully documented schema is adequate: required parameter, optional dates, and return categories are all inferable. It would benefit from explicitly noting optional date-range behavior or pointing to sibling tools for details, hence not a 5.

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% and the schema already documents shield_zone_id, date_from, and date_to. The description only restates the idea of a date range, adding no meaning beyond 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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('security metrics overview for a shield zone'), and enumerates the metric types (WAF blocks, rate limit triggers, bot detections, DDoS mitigation), making it easy to distinguish from generic shield-zone or WAF-rule tools.

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?

The phrase 'security metrics overview for a shield zone over a date range' gives clear context for when to call this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, even though siblings like get_waf_rules and get_bot_detection overlap.

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