get_jobs_daily

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

No annotations provided; description discloses that it returns daily counts, durations, and failure rates with a default date range. However, it does not mention response structure, pagination, or authentication requirements. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Each sentence earns its place by stating what it does and a use case.

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 simplicity (2 optional date parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the needed context. It explains the kind of data returned and the default range, which is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 already describes both parameters with YYYY-MM-DD format (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating 'Defaults to last 7 days', providing context on default behavior that the schema does not convey.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'daily job metrics' with explicit fields (counts, durations, failure rates). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_jobs (individual jobs) and get_jobs_summary (likely overall summary).

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 states 'Great for spotting trends', indicating usage for trend analysis over time. It defaults to last 7 days. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation from other job retrieval functions.

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