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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what each returned item contains, that these are starting points which can be renamed and retargeted afterwards, and an interaction norm (suggest 3-6, don't dump the catalog).

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 what the catalog is, then usage triggers, then filters, then interaction guidance. It is on the longer side, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the closing rename/retarget note is marginally soft.

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 correctly describes the shape of returned items (unit, cadence, good-direction, facet, tags). With usage conditions, filters, an adopt path and interaction norms all present, an agent has everything needed to call and apply this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic framing beyond the schema by explaining facet as 'where it lives in the business' and tag as 'what kind of number it is', clarifying how the two filters conceptually divide the catalog.

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?

States a specific resource (ready-made metric presets) and enumerates the attributes each carries (unit, cadence, good-direction, facet, tags), so the agent knows exactly what is being browsed. It also distinguishes itself from the adopt sibling, which is the action tool, not this read tool.

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 names three triggering conditions: a workspace with few/no metrics, someone asking what to measure, and a decision needing a number to settle against when none exists. It also routes the follow-up action to ledger_metric_presets_adopt by name.

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