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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: 'Returns only data visible to the linked Market Brew account,' disclosing account-scoping/permission boundaries. It adds nothing about pagination, filter behavior, or metric shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the scoping note. No filler or redundancy, though the content is thin rather than efficient-but-rich.

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 no-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, it never clarifies what 'metrics' this returns or how the query filters affect results, leaving the agent without context to invoke it meaningfully.

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% and the single 'query' object is documented with its candidate filter keys (websiteId, serverHost, title, status, sortBy, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 essentially restates the tool name and title ('get Content Booster metrics') without adding a distinguishing verb, scope, or resource detail. It does not distinguish this metrics endpoint from siblings like get_content_booster, get_flight_plan_metrics, or get_task_metrics. This is near-tautology.

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 only guidance is 'Use this when the user asks to get Content Booster metrics,' which is a trivial restatement of the name rather than real routing advice. No alternatives (e.g., get_content_booster for entity details vs. this for metrics) or exclusions are given.

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