dnsfilter_get_qps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the output is a time series rather than a single scalar and hints at near-real-time data via the 'live traffic pulse' phrasing. However, it does not disclose aggregation or bucket behavior, output shape, rate limits, or operational caveats beyond what the parameter schema already encodes.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core resource: 'Queries-per-second time series'. The second clause, 'the closest thing to a live traffic pulse', is evocative but not strictly informative, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 20-parameter analytics endpoint with no output schema and more than 50 sibling tools, a one-sentence metaphor is not enough. An agent still lacks clarity about the returned shape, unit and bucketing behavior, and how this tool relates to query logs, totals, and other QPS-specific siblings.

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 all 20 parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and filtering semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which places this at the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the resource as a 'queries-per-second time series' and conveys the high-level purpose of reporting QPS over time, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It is clear enough to separate from totals, tops, and query-log tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling QPS-specific tools such as dnsfilter_get_qps_active_agents or dnsfilter_get_qps_active_organizations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dnsfilter_get_query_logs, dnsfilter_get_total_requests, or the other QPS endpoints. The 'live traffic pulse' metaphor weakly implies a monitoring use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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