timeline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds important traits: the daily rollup limitation, why hour/peer/event_type grouping are unavailable, and what configuration produces the handder chart. It does not disclose return format, safety profile, or rate limits, but for a read-only counting endpoint the key behavioral pitfalls are addressed.

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 three succinct sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded and each sentence adds either usage, capability, or a limitation. It is compact and scannable.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main target format, a key group_by use case, and the daily rollup limitation, but it omits start/end handling, other group_by values, week granularity, and what the response shape looks like. An agent might still need to infer several details before invoking it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'target' format and gives meaning to 'group_by=origin' + daily granularity. However, it does not explain start/end semantics, the difference between group_by none vs collector, or what 'week' granularity means, leaving several parameters underdocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Counts over time for target', with concrete target examples (asn:13335, prefix:1.1.1.0/24). It distinguishes itself from bulk event downloads by saying it replaces them, but it does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so it misses some differentiation.

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?

It provides usage context by noting it replaces bulk event downloads and that 'group_by=origin' at daily granularity is the handover chart. It also explicitly lists unavailable options (hour granularity, peer/event_type grouping) and explains the underlying daily rollup, which helps prevent incorrect usage. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for unsupported queries.

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