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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The one added fact is the account-scoping constraint ('only data visible to the linked Market Brew account'), which is genuinely useful authorization context but is the only new behavioral information.

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 sentences, no padding, and the scoping caveat is stated up front after the trigger. It is appropriately sized, though the first sentence is pure restatement and carries no informational payload.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return semantics could be described, yet it says nothing about the shape or format of the metrics returned. Combined with zero sibling differentiation, the definition leaves the agent under-equipped to use this tool confidently.

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 parameter already enumerates its filters (customerId, crewIds, websiteId, serverHost, startDate, endDate). The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'get crawl activity metrics' adds nothing beyond the name/title pair. It never says what a crawl activity metric actually is, what dimensions it covers, or how it differs from the numerous sibling metrics tools (get_search_metrics, get_task_metrics, get_ranking_sensor_metrics, get_flight_plan_metrics).

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?

'Use this when the user asks to get crawl activity metrics' is a circular trigger phrase, not routing guidance. It gives no when-not condition and never names an alternative among the metric-getting siblings, leaving the agent unable to disambiguate the crowded metrics family.

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