get_downtime_kpi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral transparency. The description only states it computes metrics, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that presumably queries or processes data.

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 with the main sentence front-loaded. The 'Args:' section adds format info but is somewhat redundant given the schema. Overall, it is concise, though the parameter list could be omitted from the description without loss.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks details on input assumptions (e.g., need for 'production gaps' data), constraints on the time range, or how it differs from other KPI tools. It is adequate but could be more 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters and specifies they are ISO 8601 strings, adding format context. However, it does not explain what the parameters represent (e.g., the time range for metrics computation) beyond the schema titles.

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 states the tool computes downtime and availability metrics based on production gaps, clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not specify which exact metrics are computed, leaving some ambiguity but still distinct from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_downtime_alarms_analysis or get_kpi_summary. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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