GNQL Timeseries Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying that results are aggregated counts per time bucket, that the interval must be 'hour' or 'day', and that time bounds use ISO 8601 format. These details go beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates on output and use case, and the third gives parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers: purpose, use case, parameter constraints, and return value nature. It does not leave important gaps, and the output schema handles return details. The description is complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reiterates that interval must be 'hour' or 'day' (already in schema as enum) and that time bounds use ISO 8601 (also in schema). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 'Get the number of unique IPs matching a GNQL query per hour/day over a time range', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'gnql-stats' and 'gnql-timeseries' by focusing on unique IP recall stats and trend analysis.

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 explicitly states it is 'useful for trend analysis and understanding how scanning/attack activity changes over time', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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