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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description goes beyond annotations by clarifying the error semantics: 'not available' vs 'no data in range', which prevents misinterpretation. It also mentions date format support, adding value.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (date formats and error semantics) is front-loaded. Each sentence adds unique value; nothing redundant.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers date format and error behavior but omits what 'metric' and 'asset' accept (e.g., tickers vs slugs), how 'aggregation' works, or the output shape. Since annotations cover safety, the gap is in param semantics and output understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description mentions dates but doesn't explain the meaning of 'metric','asset','interval','aggregation' beyond names. The error semantics add some context but not full parameter guidance.

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 clearly states it returns timeseries data for a metric on an asset. It is distinct from siblings like get_metric_metadata and get_metrics_batch, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. The verb 'get' and resource 'metric timeseries' are specific.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving metric timeseries but doesn't explicitly specify when to use this over get_metric_timeseries_multi or get_ohlcv. It notes relative and ISO dates, which is helpful but not a full when/why.

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