query_isp_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. While the parameter descriptions are detailed, behavioral traits beyond input are omitted.

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 and well-structured, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers usage and parameters. It mentions the prerequisite tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, an example of the 'sites' parameter structure would further enhance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, expected format, and optionality. 'metric_type' is described with possible values, 'sites' is explained with structure, and timestamps are clarified with ISO 8601 format.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'ISP metrics for specific sites'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_isp_metrics' by emphasizing site specificity and recommending 'list_sites' first, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 explicit context on when to use ('after list_sites') and includes a prerequisite step ('Use list_sites first'). However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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