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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions, or whether it returns the full resource. This is a gap for a read operation with no other 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation but lacks details about the return value, error cases, or any special behaviors. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer standard REST semantics.

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 schema has one integer parameter named 'id' with zero description coverage. The description's "by ID" clarifies that the parameter is the identifier of the metric group, adding modest semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. While it doesn't deeply compensate, the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 "Get a metric group by ID" uses a specific verb (get) and resource (metric group) and explicitly scopes by ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "by ID" — the agent knows it should use this when it has a metric group ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus metric_groups_list or other alternatives, so it falls short of a clear directive.

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