get_severity_alert_metrics

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context about data inconsistencies ('these metrics combine errors and alerts, so there may be inconsistencies from what list_alerts returns') and includes permission requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational insights beyond the structured data.

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 and appropriately sized, with purpose, usage guidance, behavioral notes, and return format clearly separated. While efficient, the inclusion of detailed return value documentation could be considered slightly redundant given the presence of an output schema.

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, the description provides excellent context with purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and return format. With both comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema available, the description focuses appropriately on the value-added information needed for effective tool selection and use.

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 comprehensively documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic value.

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 severity') and resources ('for rule and policy alert types within a given time period'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list_alerts' tool, making the differentiation clear and specific.

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 ('to identify hot spots in your alerts') versus alternatives ('use the list_alerts tool for specific details'). It also includes important context about data inconsistencies between tools, offering clear usage boundaries.

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