loki_search_phlebo_daily_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds value by listing the specific fields returned (status, availability, battery, etc.), but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior or how extra_filters are interpreted. The description is adequate but not exceptional beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first lists the tool's output fields, the second frames it as a board. Every word serves a purpose, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output fields, but lacks details on pagination (page, per_page) and the usage of extra_filters. It does not document any special behaviors like rate limits or prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple list endpoint but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.

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 60% (date, hub_ids, extra_filters have descriptions; page and per_page do not). The description lists the returned fields, which relate to extra_filters, but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain the format of date or the role of pagination. The added value is marginal, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool lists all phlebos/riders working a hub on a date, providing a specific verb ('List'), resource ('phlebos/riders'), and scope ('working a hub on a date'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like loki_get_phlebo_day_metrics (single phlebo metrics) and loki_get_hub_riders (riders without live tracking), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly frames this as the 'Track Phlebos' board for a hub+day, giving clear context for when to use it—to view live day-tracking data at a hub-day level. While it does not list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, the context is sufficient to guide an agent, especially given the sibling tool names.

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