unifi_gen_queryispmetrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication needs, response shape, rate limits, or why confirm/dry_run exist alongside a read-only query.

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 brief and technically front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The provenance sentence adds little operational value compared with a sentence describing interval or site filtering.

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 four parameters, a required type interval, confirm/dry-run preview behavior, a vendor body, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what metrics are returned, how sites are scoped, or how preview mode works from this description alone.

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 schema documents all four parameters, including type, confirm, dry_run, and body. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 says "Query ISP Metrics," which gives a clear verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings such as unifi_sm_query_isp_metrics, unifi_gen_getispmetrics, or unifi_sm_get_isp_metrics.

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, what data it returns, or why an agent would choose it over the multiple sibling ISP metrics tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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