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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by promising 'keys and coverage only, never figures,' which clarifies that this tool will not return underlying data values. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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-loads the core message, with the mode-switching instruction in the second sentence. The phrase 'What Muffed can answer on' is slightly awkward and adds less value than the rest, but overall there is no waste and every sentence contributes.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does the necessary work of stating what is returned: family counts, season coverage, or individual keys and coverage, and explicitly excludes figures. It could be more complete by explaining how season and entity_kind filter the results, but the essential call contract is understandable without opening the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains search and detail:true. It does not clarify the semantics of limit, season, or entity_kind, and it never explains how these filters affect the summary versus individual-key modes. The parameter names are suggestive but the behavior is left largely undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool lists metrics and contrasts two output modes: a default family summary versus individual metric keys via search/detail:true. It also narrows the contract with 'Returns keys and coverage only, never figures,' making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_metric_definition, but the purpose itself is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to know what Muffed can answer, with a default summary mode and an opt-in individual-key mode. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_entity_metrics or get_metric_definition, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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