zins_get_web_protocols

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (read-only). It adds context about the metrics provided but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or limitations. The annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description's contribution is moderate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No extraneous words, every part is functional and informative.

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 6 parameters (100% schema coverage), no required parameters, and an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose and output type (protocol usage, HTTPS adoption metrics). Minor improvement could be mentioning the output format or interval constraints, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the output. The schema already thoroughly describes each parameter, including constraints and alternatives, so no additional value is provided.

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 provides web protocol distribution analytics (HTTP, HTTPS, SSL) including protocol usage and HTTPS adoption metrics. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and is well-differentiated from sibling tools, none of which overlap in function.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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