query_isp_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it excels: it reveals that host/site are resolved to IDs, that start_time/end_time must be ISO 8601 strings, that epoch integers are rejected with a specific validation error, and even highlights a deliberate inconsistency with related history tools. This goes far beyond generic filtering semantics.

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 long but highly structured: an opening summary, then a per-parameter breakdown, and a detailed time-format note. Every sentence earns its place by conveying critical, non-obvious information. The front-loaded summary gives immediate purpose clarity before diving into details.

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 complexity (6 params, one required, unusual time formats) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all invocation concerns. The only omitted aspect is return shapes, which the output schema already provides. An agent can call this tool correctly with high confidence.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains interval values, the meaning of host and site, the advanced 'sites' parameter, and the exact accepted format for start_time/end_time, including edge cases and failure modes. Every parameter is meaningfully documented.

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 opens with 'Query filtered ISP metrics with optional site/time range filters', which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly positions itself as the filtered variant of `get_isp_metrics`, distinguishing it from the sibling tool without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For a quick unscoped read, use get_isp_metrics'. It also clarifies the intended use of host/site versus the advanced 'sites' parameter, giving an agent clear situational guidance.

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