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 one genuinely useful piece of context — the account-scoped visibility limit ('only data visible to the linked Market Brew account') — but says nothing about time-range limits, granularity, or result size.

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 the visibility constraint front-loaded after a wasted opening clause. It is compact, but the first sentence carries no information beyond the tool name, so half the text does not earn 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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place return shape could be conveyed, and it says nothing about granularity, time bucketing, or response format. For a history-metrics tool with a free-form nested query object, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents crewIds, metricKeys, startDate, endDate, and scale. The description contributes nothing about the query object, so the baseline 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 essentially restates the tool name and title ('get usage metric history') without adding a distinguishing verb/resource combination. It never differentiates from close siblings like get_usage_metrics, get_usage_report, or get_usage_report_history, so an agent cannot tell which history-oriented tool to pick.

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 usage metric history' is circular — it only says to use the tool when its own name is requested. No when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of the several near-duplicate usage siblings that would be the real alternatives.

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