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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes data-quality caveats ('coverage and source limitations'), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown metric or how the definition relates to returned values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the returned fields follow. It is efficient, though the trailing list of fields is slightly dense.

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, the description usefully covers what comes back, but it leaves the parameter layer entirely undocumented and offers no routing guidance among the five sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. It does not explain the expected format of the required 'metric' identifier or that 'asset' is an optional filter defaulting to BTC, leaving both parameters semantically bare.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('metric definition') and an explicit enumeration of what the metadata covers: intervals, method, coverage, source limitations. This implicitly separates it from value-fetching siblings like fetch_metric and get_asset_metrics, though no sibling is named directly.

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 or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer from the word 'metadata' that this precedes a data fetch, but nothing in the text confirms that workflow.

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