zins_get_cyber_incidents_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about providing trends over time. It does not contradict annotations. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication) are disclosed beyond the read-only nature.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, very concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks explanation of how parameters affect the data (e.g., daily aggregation), leaving some ambiguity for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the high-level purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides daily cybersecurity incident trends, patterns, and statistics. It is specific about the resource and aggregation level, distinguishing it from siblings like zins_get_cyber_incidents which likely return different granularity. However, it could be more precise about the exact data returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zins_get_cyber_incidents or zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_location. The description only states what it does, not context for selection.

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