query_otlp_metrics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the return type ('time-series matrix') and a '[PREVIEW]' status flag. It does not mention failure modes, but the schema covers the wide-window constraint.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and result with no filler. '[PREVIEW]' is a useful status marker and does not hurt readability.

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 a PromQL query tool, the schema supplies rich parameter guidance (query examples, step hints, window limits) and annotations cover safety. The description's only gap is lack of explicit usage-alternative routing and a fuller return-format description, but the overall definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with types, formats, and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('native OTLP metrics'), and query type ('PromQL range query'), and states the return shape ('time-series matrix'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling discovery tools like get_otlp_metric_names and get_otlp_metric_labels.

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 implies use for querying metric time series but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing. The schema's query examples point to get_otlp_metric_names / get_otlp_metric_labels for discovery, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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