victorialogs.field_values

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description need not restate it. It adds the useful constraint that the field is required and the window must be bounded, but says nothing about the limit cap, default range behavior, or result ordering/pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a seven-parameter tool rather than true economy.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no help text on query/filter semantics or defaults, one sentence is not enough. An agent knows what the tool returns but not how to shape the request.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate — yet it only alludes to 'field' and the time window. The query/filter pair, the '*' default, and the 100/500 limit bounds are documented nowhere, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('values and hit counts for a required field'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling field_names tool that only lists names. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly names the alternative tools it competes with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Bounded time window' hints that a time constraint is mandatory, but the description never says when to pick field_values over search_logs, hits, or query_stats, despite seven sibling tools that overlap.

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