get_rule_alert_metrics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('for ALL alert types'), mentioning the permission requirement ('Permissions:{"all_of": ["Read Panther Metrics"]}'), and describing the grouping behavior ('grouped by detection rule'). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational context.

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 well-structured with purpose first, usage guidance second, and return format third. The permission information is appended but relevant. While efficient, the return format section could be more concise since an output schema exists, making some of that detail redundant.

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 complexity (aggregated metrics with time grouping), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, differentiation from siblings, permission requirements, and behavioral scope. With both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than repeating structured information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters with clear descriptions and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the time period grouping. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Gets alert metrics grouped by detection rule') and resources ('for ALL alert types, including alerts, detection errors, and system errors within a given time period'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_alerts' by specifying this is for aggregated metrics rather than specific alert details.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this tool to identify hot spots in alerts') versus alternatives ('use list_alerts for specific alert details'). It clearly differentiates this aggregated metrics tool from the detailed listing sibling tool, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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