verdonz_investigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it mostly does not: it never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth or specific permissions, what it returns, or how long it may take. The one behavioral fact given — 'Production availability depends on the connected Verdonz API' — is a vaguely worded deployment caveat rather than actionable operational context.

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-loaded with the purpose, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the second sentence is vague enough that it barely earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits parameter meaning, return behavior, and any concrete detail about the availability dependency. An agent has almost nothing beyond the tool name to construct a correct call.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage means the schema contributes nothing, and the description mentions only the implicit 'metric'. Nothing explains what datasetId, timeRange, dimensions, or comparisonPeriod expect, even though two of them are nested objects whose shape an agent must guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Investigate why a governed metric changed' tells the agent this is root-cause analysis of a metric, which is more precise than a generic 'investigate'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like verdonz_ask or verdonz_get_evidence, which sound equally applicable to metric questions.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling, so an agent cannot tell whether to call this versus verdonz_ask or verdonz_get_evidence. The only contextual sentence concerns API availability, which is a prerequisite note rather than routing guidance.

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