zins_get_web_protocols

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only analytics.' It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the output shape ('One row per protocol with its aggregated total') and the critical window restriction. This is sufficient for a read-only analytics tool.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that deliver purpose, output shape, and a critical constraint. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no padding or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint but leaves parameter semantics largely unaddressed. An agent would need to infer or look elsewhere for how to properly set time parameters and traffic_unit. This is a moderate gap for reliable invocation.

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 very low (14%); only the `query` parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the other six parameters (start_time, end_time, start_days_ago, end_days_ago, traffic_unit, limit). The vague mention of a 7- or 14-day window does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level guidance.

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's function: 'Get web traffic broken down by protocol (HTTP, HTTPS, SSL, …)' with a specific verb, resource, and grouping dimension. It also notes output granularity ('One row per protocol'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like zins_get_web_traffic_by_location and zins_get_web_traffic_no_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 an explicit usage constraint: 'Window must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval.' This guides when the tool can be used. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to make such guidance partially implicit.

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