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 by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that results are scoped to the linked Market Brew account — which is auth/permission context the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about latency, pagination, or metric granularity, so it stays at a modest 3.

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 with no padding, and the scoping caveat is placed second where it belongs. It is efficient, though the first sentence spends its words restating the name rather than earning them.

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 and no return-value information, so the description should explain what 'metrics' actually contains — dimensions, time series, aggregation level — and it does not. For a metrics endpoint sitting alongside a dozen other metrics endpoints, this leaves the agent unable to tell what it will receive or how it differs from siblings.

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 already enumerates customerId, crewIds, websiteId, serverHost, startDate, and endDate. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 a tautological restatement of the tool name: 'Use this when the user asks to get Flight Plan metrics' adds no verb, scope, or resource explanation beyond what 'get_flight_plan_metrics' already says. It never defines what a 'Flight Plan' is or what kind of metrics are returned, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like get_crawl_metrics, get_search_metrics, get_ranking_sensor_metrics, or get_task_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?

The only guidance is a circular trigger ('when the user asks to get Flight Plan metrics'), which offers no when-not condition, prerequisite, or named alternative among the many sibling metrics tools. Usage is implied at best and gives the agent nothing to route on.

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