telemetry_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses asynchronous processing (fire-and-forget), the 100-per-batch limit, and the important detail that data always goes to api.storno.ro regardless of base URL configuration. It does not describe response/return behavior (no output schema), which is a minor gap for a write-type operation.

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 sentences covering purpose, behavior, limit, and a notable routing caveat. Zero wasted words; every sentence earns its place. The critical override detail (api.storno.ro regardless of base URL) is front-loaded near the end but highly value-bearing.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key operational facts: rate limit, async behavior, and routing override. It could add return-value/error handling info, but for a telemetry send operation with 100% schema coverage, the completeness is solid.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (events, platform, companyId). The description adds a couple of operational details (100 max events, async processing) but does not add much beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool sends a batch of telemetry events for the current user and company, with a specific verb ('send') and resource ('batch of telemetry events'). It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools since no other telemetry tools exist among the siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any alternative.

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 clear usage context: telemetry is for the current user/company, processed asynchronously, max 100 events per batch. It notes a notable behavioral quirk (always sent to api.storno.ro regardless of configured base URL). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but this tool has no obvious sibling competition, so the guidance is adequate.

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