production_kpis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the structured data: results are compared against the previous period of the same length. It does not mention default/omitted date behavior or any rate/permission constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with 'Management summary for a period,' with no wasted words. The metric list is long but each item earns its place by scoping the result set. Slightly list-heavy but efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The gap is that both parameters default to null and the description never states what period is used when dates are omitted, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no detail about date formatting, defaults, or what period is assumed when the nullable dates are omitted.

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 identifies this as a rolled-up management summary spanning OEE, quality, downtime, delivery and inventory — a specific composite resource. However, it never names the overlapping siblings (machine_oee, downtime_pareto, scrap_summary, late_work_orders) to explain how it differs from them. A clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite four sibling tools covering overlapping metrics. The agent must infer on its own whether to call this composite summary or the individual metric tools. Only implied usage is present.

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