zins_get_cyber_incidents_daily

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

The description states 'Read-only analytics,' consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds the constraint that the window must be 7 or 14 days, which is useful but does not elaborate on rate limits, permissions, or exact output format. Given annotations already indicate read-only, the description adds moderate 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. No redundant words, and each sentence adds value.

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?

The description lacks output schema details and does not explain the return format (e.g., an array of date-count objects). It provides the window constraint and grouping, which is helpful but incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no output 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 coverage is only 17% (only query parameter has a description). The description mentions the window constraint but does not clarify parameters like start_days_ago, end_days_ago, limit, start_time, end_time. It adds vague context but fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool retrieves daily cyber-security incident trends, grouping by day (categorize_by=TIME) to spot spikes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zins_get_cyber_incidents and zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_location by focusing on daily trends and specifying the grouping.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: for analyzing daily incident trends over a 7- or 14-day window. It implies when to use (for trend spotting) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like zins_get_cyber_incidents for raw incidents.

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