timeseries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the bucketing behavior, the precedence rule that 'days' is ignored when 'frm' is given, and that several parameters act as restrictions. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only status or timezone/data-availability caveats.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line definition, a one-line use case, then a terse argument list. Every sentence and arg line earns its place, with no repetition of schema defaults or enum values.

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 8 parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the parameter semantics and intended usage well. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when 'to' is omitted or how frm/to interact beyond the days override, but these are unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does. Every one of the 8 parameters receives a plain-language explanation, including date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), the interaction between days and frm, and what each restriction filter does. This fully bridges the gap left by the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 identifies the tool as a time-bucketed metric visualization ('A metric over time, bucketed by day, week or month') and gives concrete use cases like spotting trends, spikes, and release effects. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as metrics or overview, but the resource and purpose are still clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use to spot trends, spikes, and the effect of a release.' This is a clear intended-use signal. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops 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.