get_intraday

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description reveals critical behavioral context: the source file is replaced every hourly run, making the tool a live snapshot rather than a stable historical archive. It also discloses the available:false failure mode and the setup guidance that accompanies it, giving the agent accurate expectations.

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 dense, informative sentences cover the core functionality, the source/version, the critical replacement behavior, the appropriate alternative tool, and the edge-case return value. The most identifying information is front-loaded ('current hour-by-hour window') and no waste or repetition exists.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, and how to handle early no-data situations. The remaining details about metrics or format are already in the schema or via sibling tools like list_metrics.

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 single parameter 'metric' is already fully documented in the input schema with an example and an explicit 'omit for all metrics' rule. The description adds no supplementary semantics for the parameter, so the schema fully covers parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the current hour-by-hour window's each metric's hourly points plus its latest value. It distinguishes the tool from get_health_metrics by explicitly saying it is a live within-day view, not history, which resolves ambiguity among siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use get_health_metrics for day-level questions, framing get_intraday as the tool for live intraday data. It also calls out the no-data-yet condition and explains that the tool returns available:false plus setup guidance, so the agent knows when the data pipeline is not ready.

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