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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying that the response contains both a latest snapshot and a time-series, plus listing the included metrics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads purpose and returned content, the second gives a clear sibling alternative. It avoids repeating schema details or annotations.

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 simple read-only metrics tool with no required parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what metrics are returned, that a snapshot and time-series are included, and how the date range behaves. The sibling pointer and annotations round out the picture, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (days range/default and workspaceId default), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's phrasing about a 'requested date range' only paraphrases the days parameter without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get workspace-level metrics') and enumerates concrete output components such as total/active campaigns, lead counts, and the top campaign. It also explicitly names the sibling tool for per-campaign detail, making its scope unmistakable.

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 clearly states workspace-level scope and explicitly routes agents to campaignstack_get_campaign_metrics for per-campaign detail. This gives an agent a direct decision rule for choosing between the two related tools.

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