Get response times

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds substantive behavior: automatic downsampling tied to window length and the caveat that larger buckets report maxima of percentiles rather than a true percentile of raw requests. That caveat materially changes how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The primary capability is front-loaded, followed by granularity rules, then the accuracy caveat and pagination instruction in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the non-obvious pieces: sampling resolution, the meaning of downsampled values, and pagination completion criteria. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining that bucket granularity is a function of the chosen window and that location filtering is optional. It does not clarify cursor/limit interaction, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read response-time series for a monitor') with scope modifiers (city/country). The resource is clearly distinct from get_uptime and get_status, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: which windows map to which bucket sizes, and the instruction to follow next_cursor until all points are collected. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_uptime/get_status, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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