api_load_test

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety framing is partly covered. The description still adds real value: hard caps (200 requests, 20 workers), the shape of the report, and an explicit ownership/authorization warning that annotations do not convey. It doesn't mention blocking behavior or failure modes beyond error counts.

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, no filler. The operational summary is front-loaded and the safety caveat is placed last where it belongs.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it summarizes them anyway. Caps and authorization are covered; only the semantics of `method`/`timeout` and any rate-limit or blocking caveats are missing, which is a minor gap for a probe tool.

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 carries the full burden. It documents maximums for `requests` (200) and `concurrency` (20), but leaves `url`, `method`, and `timeout` (including timeout units) entirely unexplained — partial compensation for a five-parameter 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: send `requests` requests with `concurrency` workers and report status counts, errors and latency percentiles. That is unambiguously distinct from the single-shot `http_request` sibling, though the description never names that alternative. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only usage guidance is the safety constraint 'Use only against systems you own', which tells the agent about authorization but not when to pick this over `http_request` or `check_tcp_port`. The load-testing context is implied rather than stated as a selection rule.

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