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 beyond that – it does not mention the 60-day timeframe cap, the need for a workspace_id, or any pagination/response behavior, all of which are behavioral facts the agent needs to call this correctly.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than a tight purposeful summary.

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 tool with nested filter/aggregate objects, an output schema, and several sibling aggregation endpoints, this description is far too thin. It omits the timeframe constraint, the workspace scoping requirement, and any distinction between this and analytics_aggregated_data, leaving the agent without what it needs to call the right 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 100%, so the schema already documents filters, aggregate, timeframe, and workspace_id in detail, including the 60-day limit and exact-match constraint. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('retrieves') and a resource ('aggregated data of the given metrics'), which is more than a tautology. However, it gives no differentiation from the many closely-named siblings such as analytics_aggregated_data, insights_breakdown_data, and insights_chart_data, so an agent cannot tell which aggregation tool to pick from the text alone.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. With three near-identical siblings (analytics_aggregated_data, insights_breakdown_data, insights_chart_data), the routing question is the most important thing to answer and it is left entirely to inference.

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