hcloud_get_load_balancer_metrics

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive call, and the description layers on substantive behavior: the 30-day retention limit, automatic step adjustment targeting 200 samples, and a hard cap of 500 samples. These are non-obvious constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then a compact table that earns its place by pairing timeseries names with units. Slightly verbose in its repetitive phrasing about step adjustment, but no section is dispensable.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so via the timeseries/unit table, including the two bandwidth series. Combined with retention and sampling limits, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: what each `type` value actually measures and its unit, and how `step` is auto-derived when omitted and clamped when too fine. This goes well beyond the schema's one-line field 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Metrics for a LoadBalancer') and immediately scopes it by naming the metric types it returns. An agent can distinguish this from hcloud_get_load_balancer (which fetches the object itself) and from the server-metrics siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational conditions: a metric type is mandatory, multiple types may be comma-separated, and data only exists for the last 30 days. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over hcloud_get_server_metrics or the raw variant, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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