Get ISP metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what the returned metrics contain, no cardinality or volume expectations for a time-series call, and no note that this is a read-only observation endpoint. Since annotations do the heavy lifting, a low-mid score reflects that the description contributes essentially zero additional behavioral context.

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?

At four words it is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than economical: it is a fragment with no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns. Brevity here costs clarity rather than gaining it.

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, no output schema, and a time-series subject matter, the description should at minimum say what metrics are returned and how granularity/time-range interact. It says nothing about return values and does not resolve the duration-versus-timestamp tension beyond what the schema already spells out.

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% and the schema itself documents each parameter, including the important warning not to combine duration with beginTimestamp/endTimestamp. The description only echoes the 'granularity bucket' idea tied to the type parameter, adding nothing the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase fragment that essentially restates the title 'Get ISP metrics' with the addition of 'for a granularity bucket'. It never names a verb or the resource scope, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the near-identical siblings unifi_sm_query_isp_metrics, unifi_gen_getispmetrics and unifi_gen_queryispmetrics, which an agent cannot differentiate from this text.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the extremely close sibling unifi_sm_query_isp_metrics, so an agent has no basis for choosing among them. Only the vaguest implied context ('metrics for a bucket') suggests this retrieves bucketed metrics.

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