Query ISP metrics

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 and idempotency are covered. The description adds only the time-window query framing and does not explain response behavior, rate limits, or body requirements; 'POST' is consistent with a read-only query using a request body.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important usage and parameter context unstated.

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, a partially documented body parameter, and several sibling ISP metrics tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain body shape, expected return values, or how this differs from get/query variants.

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 only 50%. The enum for type is documented in the schema, and 'time-window' loosely relates to it, but the description does not explain the required body parameter or compensate for the vague 'see docs for shape' schema note.

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 a specific action and resource: querying ISP metrics over a time window. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as unifi_sm_get_isp_metrics or unifi_gen_queryispmetrics.

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?

It implies the tool is used for time-window ISP metric queries, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer selection versus the related ISP metrics tools.

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