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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the flat 148-credit cost, the plan gating, and the fact that formula_override requires Pro+. It also notes that current_price omission yields a hint instead of a value, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the metric list, then cost, endpoint, and plan requirements. It packs useful information into two sentences without redundancy. Minor deduction for the dense metric list, but it earns its place.

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?

For a read-only metrics tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers cost, endpoint, plan gating, and metric scope. It does not describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only annotations make that less critical. The main gap is not naming sibling metric tools for comparison, but the metric list largely compensates.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds the flat cost and plan gating but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('financial health metrics'), and enumerates the 11 metrics included, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling metric tools like get_profitability_metrics or get_valuation_metrics. The endpoint and plan requirements add further specificity.

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 states the plan requirement (Starter or higher) and the Pro+ requirement for formula_override, giving clear conditions for use. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling metric tools, but the metric list and endpoint make the use case clear enough.

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