get_rule_trends

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint and openWorldHint). It discloses the fallback mechanism when the primary endpoint returns 400, the scoping behavior with FIREWALLA_BOX_ID, the exclusion of deleted rules, and that the response explicitly indicates the fallback. This level of behavioral detail is exceptional and helps an agent anticipate edge cases.

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 a single, complex sentence that leads with the core functionality, then details the fallback and scoping. It is information-dense without redundancy, though its length and nested clauses slightly reduce skimmability. Overall, it is concise given the amount of context it conveys.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary runtime behavior: the data source, the aggregation window, the fallback logic, scoping rules, and handling of deleted rules. It also notes when the response will indicate a fallback. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret its behavior is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (group and period), including defaults and semantics (e.g., 'The API has no finer resolution than a day'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing get_alarm_trends for semantics, which is implicitly covered. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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's purpose: it returns rules created per day over the last 30 days, sourced from a specific endpoint. It also differentiates from the sibling get_alarm_trends by explicitly referencing how period and group semantics align. The verb+resource+metric are all concrete, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 references get_alarm_trends for how period and group work, which gives users a model for usage. It also explains when a fallback occurs (HTTP 400) and how it scopes by FIREWALLA_BOX_ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_alarm_trends or other siblings, nor outline any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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