organizations-list-uplinkslossandlatency

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only' and adds temporal constraint ('from at latest 2 minutes ago'). These are useful behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or data availability, preventing a top score.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It only says 'uplink loss and latency for every MX' without detailing the structure (list, object, fields). Given 7 parameters and optional filters, the description is incomplete for helping the agent understand the response format.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the '2 minutes ago' constraint to the t0/t1/timespan parameters, providing contextual guidance beyond the schema. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 returns uplink loss and latency for every MX appliance in the organization with a specific time constraint ('at latest 2 minutes ago'). This verb-resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get-organization-uplinks-statuses', which likely provide broader uplink status.

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 description gives context on the time window but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the tool is for MX loss/latency specifically, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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