get_kpi

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states read-intent via 'get' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. The instruction to read guides is helpful but doesn't describe the tool's own behavior beyond purpose.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then supplementary reading references. Zero redundant content; every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, description covers purpose and parameter discovery but omits expected return value structure, error behavior, and authentication requirements. It is minimally sufficient for a simple get tool but not rich enough to fully prepare the agent.

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 already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions and enums (100% coverage). Description adds value by directing agent to kpi-metadata resource for kpiId lookup and api-overview for calcGroup/calc explanations, which helps the agent select valid parameter values beyond the schema's enum constraints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'get' and identifies resource 'specific KPI value for one instrument', clearly differentiating from siblings like get_kpi_all (which suggests multiple instruments) and get_kpi_history (historical series). No ambiguity.

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?

Implied usage: use for a single KPI of a single instrument. Provides prerequisites (reading metadata/guide resources) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_kpi_history or get_kpi_all, nor when not to use it.

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