query_isp_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it returns a list of metrics, but does not disclose safety profile, authentication needs, rate limits, or mutation behavior. This is minimal.

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 concise with a summary line and structured Args/Returns format. However, the inclusion of an extra parameter ('settings') not in the schema is a clarity issue.

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 annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on pagination, filtering behavior, error handling, and completeness of the return values. Output schema exists but description still needs more behavioral context.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes three schema parameters (site_id, start_time, end_time) with format hints, but also includes 'settings' which is not in the schema, causing inconsistency. It adds some meaning, but inaccuracy reduces score.

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 queries ISP metrics with optional filters. The verb 'query' is specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'get_isp_metrics', which likely performs a similar function.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_isp_metrics' or 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.