zins_get_web_protocols

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only analytics.' It adds value by describing the output structure (one row per protocol with aggregated total) and the window constraint. However, no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 succinct with three sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, output structure, and constraint. It is front-loaded and minimal, though it could be slightly more precise about parameter roles without adding length.

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 7 parameters with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, default behaviors, or the exact output format beyond 'one row per protocol.' The agent would likely need to experiment or rely on parameter names to understand usage.

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 14% (only 'query' has a description). The description mentions a 7-14 day window but does not map this to specific parameters (start_time, end_time, start_days_ago, end_days_ago). The meaning of 'limit' and 'traffic_unit' is left to inference, and default values are not explained.

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 retrieves web traffic broken down by protocol, with specific examples (HTTP, HTTPS, SSL). It mentions the output aggregation and the required time window, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zins_get_web_traffic_by_location or 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 implies usage when needing protocol-level traffic data and specifies the window must be 7-14 days. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or list alternative tools for other breakdowns (e.g., by location or without grouping).

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