Query Production Counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, if results are paginated beyond the limit parameter, or the structure of the returned data. The hint about ISO 8601 timestamps is helpful but insufficient for a data-returning tool.

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 very short—two sentences with no fluff. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds the optional filter details. It's concise but perhaps too sparse given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. The tool has 4 optional parameters, which may require guidance on default behavior (e.g., if no time range given, does it return the last hour? all data?). The lack of behavioral transparency and return value documentation leaves significant gaps for an agent to use this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'asset id and/or time range' which maps to the asset_id, start, and end parameters, but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states. The time range format hint ('ISO 8601 timestamps') is valuable but repeats the schema's property descriptions.

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 it returns hourly production counts and notes optional filtering by asset id and/or time range. The verb 'query' plus the resource 'production counts' makes the purpose specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_downtime or summarize_throughput.

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 context on when to use it—for hourly production counts with optional filters. However, there are no explicit guidelines on when not to use it versus alternatives like summarize_throughput or find_anomalies, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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