get_metric_series

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: server-side min/max downsampling semantics and a prompt-injection warning that returned training content is untrusted data. The downsampling disclosure is real behavioral value; the 'sampled' flag it hinges on is not exposed in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the downsampling caveat. Every sentence is short and purposeful, though the 'sampled=true' clause wastes attention on an argument the schema does not define.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does state the return shape ([x,y] points) plus the untrusted-data caveat. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage it omits how limit/stream/axis shape the result and references a non-existent flag, leaving real gaps.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: it says nothing about key, limit, or stream. Worse, it centers on a 'sampled' parameter that is not present in the schema, which can mislead the agent about how to request downsampled data.

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+resource: reads bounded numeric [x,y] metric points. It distinguishes itself from download_history for full fidelity, so an agent can tell them apart. However, the reference to a 'sampled=true' argument that does not exist in the schema muddies exactly what this tool returns.

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 this for bounded/sampled reads, use download_history for full fidelity. That is a clear when-to-use and alternative. It does not address other overlapping siblings such as get_history or plot_metric, so it stops short of full coverage.

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