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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no word on pagination via limit/cursor, no word on how category narrows results, and no indication of the return shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is still a bare-minimum disclosure.

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 core statement is one short clause, but it is buried behind an exhaustive ticker dump that duplicates the schema enum verbatim. That is pure redundancy, not conciseness, and it pushes the actual purpose to the front only because nothing else follows it.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry pagination and filtering semantics. It does not, so an agent cannot tell how limit/cursor interact or what 'category' filters on, nor what the response contains.

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% across four parameters. The description only touches 'asset', and even there it merely restates the enum values rather than adding meaning (e.g., whether it is a symbol or an id). The 'limit', 'cursor', and 'category' parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the calling contract unexplained.

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 verb+resource ('get/discover ... metrics of one asset') is identifiable, but 'available and held metrics' is vague jargon that never explains what a metric actually is. The sentence is almost entirely consumed by re-listing the 49 asset tickers already present in the schema enum, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like get_metrics_list or fetch_metric.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The description never says when to pick this tool over fetch_metric, fetch_bulk_metrics, or get_metrics_list, nor does it state any prerequisites. The reader must infer the single-asset vs bulk distinction entirely from the tool name.

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