get_intelligence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds that results include both 'events and summary', hinting at the return shape, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how the optional daily window/threshold settings affect output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target resource, the analytical dimensions, and the temporal scope. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For an 8-parameter analytical tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core query dimensions but omits the optional threshold/time-window semantics and any sense of result shape. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete enough to predict behavior.

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 75%, and the description restates the metric and entity value sets ('counting, idle, presence of people, vehicles, forklifts') which duplicate the enums rather than adding meaning. It offers no help on the three undocumented/optional params (threshold, start_time, end_time) or the RFC3339 date format, so it neither compensates for nor adds beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get intelligence events and summary for a camera') and enumerates the metric and entity dimensions the tool covers, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_lpr_report or get_zones, which also return per-camera analytical output.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement ('for a camera ... over a date range'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing guidance against siblings such as get_lpr_report or get_camera_count. The agent must infer that 'intelligence' means the counting/idle/presence analytics family.

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