unifi_get_isp_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses account-wide scope, granularity options, and retention windows ('5-minute data is retained at least 24h; 1-hour data at least 30 days'). It does not mention output format or rate limits, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by retention details and the parameter constraint, making the most decision-relevant information easy to parse.

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?

The description covers input constraints and retention but does not clarify the difference from unifi_query_isp_metrics, and there is no output schema to describe the return shape. For an agent choosing among similar ISP-metric tools, the missing sibling differentiation is a real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and its constraints. The description restates the mutual-exclusion rule but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 specific action and resource: 'Get WAN/ISP health and traffic metrics for every site linked to this API key's account'. This is clear and scoped, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling unifi_query_isp_metrics.

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 implies when to use the tool by defining its scope and retention behavior, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like unifi_query_isp_metrics. The parameter rule about duration vs timestamps is helpful, but tool-selection guidance is missing.

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