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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the default family rollup, which is already visible in the schema. It does not clarify read-only behavior, data granularity, time-range handling, or other operational traits.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of explanatory value.

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 four parameters and no annotations, this description is too minimal. The output schema may cover return structure, but the required parameter, relationship to sibling tools, and intended usage context remain unclear.

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 explain parameter meaning, but it only vaguely hints at 'metric' and 'family rollup'. The required 'name' parameter is not explained, and 'limit' is entirely undocumented.

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 identifies the tool as providing model metric time-series data, and the tool name reinforces the 'get' action. It is distinct enough from siblings like topic_trend or get_entity_trend, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_entity_trend or compare_entity_trends. The phrase 'family rollup by default' hints at behavior but doesn't help an agent decide between this and related trend tools.

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