Get Interaction Counters

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is 'real-time' and returns specific metrics. No contradictions with annotations. Lacks details like pagination or time-window semantics, but the addition of real-time behavior and output metrics earns a 4.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second details the output, and the third provides the use case. No wasted words or redundant information. Fully front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, data returned, and use case. It doesn't mention filtering behavior or alternative tools, but the schema handles filtering. It's adequate but not as exhaustive as the get_calls example, which explicitly noted scope limitations.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides; both obj_type and obj_hashes are clearly described in the schema. No extra semantic value from the description.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time service-to-service call relationships.' It elaborates with the exact metrics shown (call counts, error counts, latency) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_counter_trend or get_service_summary by focusing on relationship topology rather than individual counters or summaries.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'Useful for understanding service dependencies and topology.' This implies a use case distinct from diagnostic or transaction-focused tools, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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