trend_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: trends are aggregated at hour-long intervals and contain min/max/average values, which explains the data shape and resolution an agent should expect.

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?

Three sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The two supporting sentences explain why trends matter and what they contain, so each sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the nature of trend data, the use case, and the key distinction from raw history, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and each parameter is already explained clearly, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of hour-long intervals and aggregation gives useful context but does not meaningfully add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource ('Get trend data from Zabbix') and immediately clarifies what makes trends distinct from raw history: aggregated, summarized, hour-long intervals with min/max/average values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like history_get even without naming them.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by explaining that trends consume less storage while preserving statistical information 'for long-term analysis,' and contrasts them with raw history. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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