Profile field by dataset

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it resolves the name against the index mapping, aggregates over event.dataset, and describes three distinct outcomes including 'not found' with suggestions and 'exists but no documents.' It also discloses the default 24-hour time window and its implications, and states that output is plain text, not JSON. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a clear 'Behavior:' section to organize outcomes. Every sentence provides necessary information—purpose, usage, edge cases, and return format. It is detailed yet efficient, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, output is plain text), the description fully covers selection and invocation. It explains the three possible outcomes, the time-window caveat, and how to handle historical data. The existing output schema (plain text) means the description needn't enumerate return values, and the description already describes the types of messages. It is complete for an agent to use appropriately.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example for the 'field' parameter ('zeek.ssl.server_name') and explaining why it matters (only present in SSL records). It also clarifies the behavior of time_from/time_to in context, though the schema already describes the defaults. Overall, it enriches but does not fully replace the schema documentation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Show which event.dataset types actually contain a given field, with doc counts.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on profiling a field across datasets, and explicitly mentions using it to learn where a field lives before scoping a query.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to learn where a field lives...' and explicitly names alternatives for related tasks: 'To confirm the field NAME first, use malcolm_field_search; to list its distinct VALUES, use malcolm_field_values.' Also covers when to use time_from/time_to for historical data.

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