GNQL Timeseries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral details such as hourly bucketing and ISO 8601 time format, but does not elaborate on the open-world nature or potential unknown results beyond what annotations imply.

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 highly concise with four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining utility, specifying time format, and detailing the size parameter. No redundant information, and key points are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, time format, and size constraints, but it does not explain what happens when start_time or end_time are omitted (since they are optional). The output schema exists and may compensate, but the description leaves a gap in understanding default behavior for time bounds.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds an example of ISO 8601 format and clarifies size constraints (default, max), but these are already present in the schema. The description does not add significant new semantic meaning.

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 hourly GNQL records for a time range, specifying it is for temporal analysis of IP activity. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'gnql-timeseries-stats' by focusing on records rather than statistics, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains the tool is useful for investigating when IPs were active, but it does not provide guidance on when to avoid using it or compare it with other sibling tools like 'gnql-stats' or 'gnql-metadata-query'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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