Summarize Throughput

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the tool as a read-style roll-up returning aggregated metrics, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, time zone assumptions, data freshness, or whether the operation is safe/read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second lists return fields. No redundant or vague language.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., list of objects, keys), error responses, or handling of empty results. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the time window as 'optionally bounded' and implies start and end are the boundaries. But it does not specify the expected format (e.g., ISO 8601), inclusive/exclusive behavior, or defaults when omitted. The addition is modest but not fully sufficient.

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 tool's function: it rolls up production counts versus target throughput per asset. It specifies the return values (total produced, target, attainment ratio, downtime minutes) and the time window. This differentiates it from sibling tools like query_production (raw data) and query_downtime (specific metric).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_production or query_downtime. The description only states what the tool does, without context for choosing among siblings or noting prerequisites.

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