get_virtual_service_analytics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds information annotations cannot express: the window is immutable (12 samples, 5 min apart) and an empty result means no traffic rather than an error. That last point is a genuine behavioral caveat that prevents a misread.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by return contents, the fixed-window constraint, the empty-result caveat, and sibling routing. Dense but every clause carries information; the only redundancy is the '[READ]' tag duplicating the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, timing, output nature, the sampling-window constraint, and empty-result semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without touching the schema.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (exact, case-sensitive name sourced from list_virtual_services). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Performance metrics for one Virtual Service') and pins the scope to a fixed one-hour window, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_virtual_service_status and get_virtual_service_error_logs.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use when get_virtual_service_status shows degraded health', and contrasts with get_virtual_service_error_logs for per-request detail. Both the trigger condition and the alternative are named.

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