gcfr_top_slowest_processes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details (top_n must be 1–50, defaults to 10; business_date defaults to today), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any potential side effects, error cases, or result limits beyond the top_n parameter. It adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 paragraphs with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and then parameter constraints/defaults. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and parameter constraints. The only notable omission is a mention of the expected date format for business_date, which is a minor gap. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the top_n range and default, and the business_date default. It does not specify the expected date format, but the defaults and constraints add meaningful meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('slowest processes by elapsed duration') and qualifies it with a business date. The word 'processes' differentiates it from the sibling gcfr_top_slowest_streams, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to identify performance bottlenecks.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative tool (like the streams variant). This is a minor gap, so it earns a 4.

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