get_throughput_timeseries

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose whether it aggregates data, how it handles time ranges beyond the schema default, or what the returned timeseries structure looks like. Without annotation support, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior beyond trivial retrieval.

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 a single, short sentence with a parenthetical use-case hint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 has an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, the lack of any behavioral context (e.g., what defines 'throughput', whether it uses NRQL internally, or how it differs from a generic query) leaves gaps for an agent selecting among siblings. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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 (since, app_name, timeseries) with defaults and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the high-level purpose. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('throughput over time for an application'), and adds a useful hint about spotting traffic patterns. It is distinct from siblings like nrql_query or get_golden_signals because it specifically targets throughput over time, though it doesn't 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 parenthetical 'useful for spotting traffic patterns' gives some context on when to use it, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like nrql_query, nor any exclusion criteria. The usage intent is implied rather than stated directly.

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