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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does reveal the scope of data returned and the requirement to know the slug, but doesn't mention pagination, performance characteristics, or how errors manifest for invalid slugs. The enumerated content list gives reasonable expectations, warranting a mid score.

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, front-loaded with the exhaustive content list followed by a targeted usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler or repetition.

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 only one parameter that is 100% schema-covered, no output schema, and no nested objects, the tool is simple. The description enumerates the return contents thoroughly and provides usage prerequisites. Since no annotations exist, the description adequately compensates for the missing safety/behavior context for a presumably read-only data retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter with format examples ('new-york', 'london'). The description reinforces that the slug must be known/exact and even names the alternative tool to find it, which slightly adds context beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

States precise verb+resource ('Full profile for one metro') and enumerates the specific data dimensions returned (rank, score, sixteen dimension values/ranks, teams, universities, culture, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from search_metros (which finds metros) and list_top_metros (which lists multiple).

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use search_metros first if you don't know the exact slug,' which directly addresses the primary prerequisite and routes to the correct sibling tool for lookup scenarios. This is clear when-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative.

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