get_isp_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return types, granularity limits (5m for 24h, 1h for 30 days), and parameter mutual exclusivity. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but as a read-only data retrieval tool, these are less critical.

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 efficiently structured: a clear summary sentence, followed by return data, granularity info, and parameter details. It uses concise language and front-loads the core purpose. Minor opportunity to integrate the Args block more naturally.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers parameter constraints, granularity, and data types. It lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward query tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, valid values (e.g., '5m' or '1h' for metric_type), and constraints (duration vs timestamps). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get ISP performance metrics across all sites' and lists the specific metrics returned. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'query_isp_metrics', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_isp_metrics'. It only implies use for retrieving ISP metrics without contextual or exclusionary advice.

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