get_metric_time_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: time range handling (inclusive start, exclusive end), timezone translation behavior, data format (JSON string), missing data handling (NA values), and constraints ('Not supported on cumulative metrics'). It lacks rate limit or authentication details, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear purpose statement, time range explanation, and organized parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The structure is logical with purpose first, then behavior, then detailed args section.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, time-series data), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, and return format. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. It clarifies metric_name usage with sibling reference, explains time format requirements (ISO8601 with tz), provides defaults for optional parameters, enumerates calculations options, and explains parameter interactions (replace_nulls effect on NA values).

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 specific action ('Get user's time-series data'), resource ('for a single Fulcra metric'), and scope ('Covers the time starting at start_time...'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_metric_samples' and 'get_metrics_catalog' by focusing on time-series retrieval rather than catalog or sample-level data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (time-series data retrieval) and references 'get_metrics_catalog' to find available metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'get_metric_samples' or 'get_location_time_series'.

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