Verify Network Performance

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds key behavioral details: 'Reports p50/p95 stats' and 'excludes events with unknown durations from percentiles,' which are beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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: first defines core function, second adds reporting detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema present and high schema coverage, the description provides sufficient high-level purpose and key behavioral traits (percentiles, exclusion). Could mention temporal anchoring with afterAction, but overall complete for a complex 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 coverage is 86% (high), baseline 3. Description mentions 'max per-request durationMs' and 'max total first-start→last-end' mapping to maxIndividualMs and maxTotalMs, but does not describe filterDomains or afterAction. Adequate but not full compensation.

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 starts with 'Assert latency budgets: max per-request durationMs and/or max total first-start→last-end across a matcher,' clearly stating the tool's specific purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_network_absent or verify_network_deduplication by focusing on performance assertions.

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 implies usage when latency budgets need assertion (e.g., 'max per-request durationMs'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct guidance on when-not-to-use is given.

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