get_kpi_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function without explaining return format, pagination, side effects, or any performance considerations. An agent is left uncertain about what the 'summary' contains or how it behaves.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 simple read tool, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not clarify what 'summary' includes, what the return structure looks like (no output schema), or how it differs from the many KPI-related sibling tools. Given the large sibling set, a bit more contextual detail would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage, so all three parameters are well documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; mentioning 'one instrument and report type' simply echoes the insId and reportType fields. Thus, 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 action ('Get a summary') and the resource ('all available KPI values') with scope ('one instrument and report type'). It is specific and conveys a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling KPI tools like get_kpi_all or get_kpi_history.

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 gives clear context by specifying the scope: 'for one instrument and report type.' This implicitly tells when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or situations where other KPI tools would be more appropriate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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