query_stress

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, whether pagination is supported, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely here.

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?

At only three words, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any sentence structure that conveys necessary context for a tool with four parameters, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the tool's complexity: no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and two required fields. A bare phrase like 'Query stress samples' leaves the agent without essential information about tool capabilities, constraints, or expected results.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation of the parameters (start_date, end_date, level, limit). The tool requires two date parameters and has a level enum, but the description does not clarify their meaning or usage, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'stress samples', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that query other data types (e.g., heart rate, sleep). However, it is not fully explicit about what constitutes a 'sample' or the exact scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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