zdx_get_application_metric

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: one series per metric, datapoints over the `since` HOURS window, default 2h, and the metric names. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences deliver purpose, read-only status, return shape, default window, optional filtering, and the prerequisite app_id source. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape: one series per metric with datapoints over the `since` window. It covers the required `app_id`, the key optional `metric_name`, and the time window, making the tool safely invocable despite missing optional filter details.

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 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `since` (HOURS window, default 2h), `metric_name` (Page Fetch Time, DNS Time, availability), and `app_id` (source tool), but it does not clarify `geo_id`, `location_id`, or `department_id`.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get ZDX performance metrics for one application (time-series).' It further names the return series (Page Fetch Time, DNS Time, availability) and the required app association, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zdx_get_application_score_trend.

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 gives clear operational guidance: 'Use `app_id` from `zdx_list_applications`' and 'Pass `metric_name` to narrow to a single metric.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons, so it falls short of a 5.

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