get_speed_page_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' and says nothing about response format, pagination, time window, metric definitions, or authorization requirements. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter read operation.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is mostly serviceable. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'speed trends' contains, what time range is used, and what the returned data looks like, so an agent would need additional context to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: url and zone_id each have descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the notion of 'a page' corresponding to the URL parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses a clear verb and target: 'Get speed trends for a page over time.' It indicates the resource (page speed trends) and the temporal nature of the data, which broadly distinguishes it from single-test tools like get_speed_test. However, 'speed trends' is not fully defined regarding which metrics or time period are involved.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_speed_test, list_speed_tests, or get_speed_schedule. The phrase 'over time' implies historical trend data, but no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are given.

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