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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: cursor pages track the current catalogue rather than an immutable snapshot, warning that results can shift mid-pagination. It stops short of describing the return shape or page-size interaction, keeping it below a 5.

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 front-loads the purpose reasonably, but roughly half its length is a 48-item ticker list that duplicates the schema enum verbatim and adds no information. That bloat buries the actually valuable pagination caveat at the end of the text.

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 no-parameter-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, default asset, and pagination consistency, which is close to sufficient. It still leaves 'limit' and 'category' semantics undefined, which matters because 0% of parameters are documented in the schema.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the asset default (BTC) and the semantics of cursor stability, which is useful, but 'limit' is never mentioned and 'category' is only gestured at with 'by existing category' without saying where categories come from or whether it is a prefix/exact match.

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 names a verb ('Discover') and a resource ('metrics') and scopes it to one asset filtered by category, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, 'discover' is vague relative to the clearer 'list' framing of the name, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_asset_metrics, get_metric_metadata, fetch_metric or fetch_bulk_metrics. The 48-ticker enumeration restates the schema enum instead of clarifying the purpose.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the five sibling metric tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance. The phrase 'including honest held and delayed states' hints at coverage but does not tell the agent when that matters or when to choose a different listing tool.

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