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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return object keys, chart array shape (grouped-bar specs, 3+ bars), and default rendering behavior, plus where % change captions live. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's _offset field, but adds substantial operational context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the sentences on return shape and chart defaults earn their place because there is no output schema. It is somewhat dense but not repetitive, and every section adds usable information.

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?

For a five-parameter metrics tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the missing return-shape and chart-rendering guidance. It does not discuss pagination or failure modes, but the core context needed to call and render the tool is present.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions comparisons conceptually and references the `changes` object, but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource ('Get metrics') and scopes it to multiple simultaneous comparisons, with examples that clarify the domain. The 'MULTIPLE' emphasis helps an agent distinguish it from the sibling get_metrics_comparison.

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?

Provides concrete example questions that select this tool over a generic metrics call, and its 'MULTIPLE comparisons at once' framing distinguishes it from get_metrics_comparison. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route to the sibling, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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