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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond this by disclosing the shape of the returned content (metrics tagged by level plus inter-metric links) and the intended follow-up adoption flow. It stops short of listing pagination or count limits, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the routing condition, then the workflow. Every sentence earns its place, though the closing adoption advice ('describe its tree in a sentence or two... dropping any metric that doesn't fit') edges toward prescriptive verbosity for a read-only list tool.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (metrics, levels, links between them). Combined with the explicit when-to-use condition and the named follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description's enumeration of business shapes usefully hints at the conceptual categories the caller will see, but these are not input arguments.

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?

Names a specific resource (starter metric trees) and states exactly what they contain: business/team shapes, each metric's level (outcome/driver/activity), and the links between numbers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ledger_metric_presets_list by naming it directly, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to reach for this tool ('before ledger_metric_presets_list when a workspace has no metrics yet or asks how its numbers fit together') and names the alternative. It also spells out the downstream workflow — pick a matching starter, describe its tree, then offer ledger_metric_starters_adopt — leaving nothing to inference.

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