zdx_get_application_score_trend

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by specifying the default 2-hour window and that it returns score-over-time datapoints, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary context without fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context for app_id and since, and explains the purpose. It omits details on optional filter parameters and the exact output format, but given the default values and positive annotations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly. A 4 is appropriate.

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 must compensate. It explains app_id (from a list tool) and since (hours window, default 2h), but does not explain geo_id, location_id, and department_id filter parameters. Since it covers two of five parameters, it partially compensates but leaves gaps, warranting a 3.

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 clearly states it gets the ZDX score trend over time for one application, which is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zdx_get_application_metric by focusing on trend data over time.

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 instructs to use app_id from zdx_list_applications and mentions the purpose of reasoning about app improvement/degradation. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, it provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, thus earning a 4 rather than 5.

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