Plotanalytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that limit is rejected above 500 rather than clamped, that no value is forwarded to the ;series endpoint, that interval is bounded 60–86400, that ranges over 2000 intervals are rejected, and that violations raise invalid_argument errors naming the limit. It also documents time-parsing rules (relative offsets, case-sensitive unit letters, UTC default for zoneless timestamps) and the no-data error path.

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 bulleted limit list is well front-loaded and scannable, but the preceding paragraph on the ';series' endpoint and 'published surface' is convoluted and repeats the limit-500 rule that the bullets state again. Implementation rationale crowds out parameter meaning.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers error behavior and range limits thoroughly but leaves four parameters (profile_id, partials, alignment, timezone) unexplained. An agent could call it, but only by guessing on those fields.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers metric values, limit, interval bounds, and from/to time formats, but never explains profile_id, partials, alignment, or the timezone parameter's effect. Roughly half the surface remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the output format: 'Generate a PNG line chart for a NextDNS analytics time-series metric.' An agent immediately knows this is a visualization tool, not a raw-data tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely named sibling queryAnalytics, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Offers 'Use this to visualize query trends over time' and a precondition that the profile must have recent query history or an error is returned. That is useful context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer queryAnalytics over this charting tool, nor when profile_id should be supplied versus omitted.

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