get_performance_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which weakly implies a read-only operation, but does not state what the overview contains, whether authentication is required, what happens without the optional params, or what response to expect.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The brevity helps, though it achieves conciseness by sacrificing almost all behavioral and usage context.

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 7 parameters, 0 required, no annotations, no output schema, and 38 siblings, the single-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the agent is left guessing about request identification, auth requirements, and how this summary differs from other performance tools.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'for a request', which hints that requestId is central, but it doesn't clarify the relationship between requestId and the to/from range parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('performance overview'), and scopes it to 'a request', which helps distinguish it from broader tools like list_requests or get_timeline. It doesn't, however, explicitly name what makes this different from related siblings such as analyze_route_performance or get_query_stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related request/performance siblings. Nothing states what problem it solves, what triggers its use, or which alternative should be chosen for other analysis needs.

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