get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what the return format looks like, or any other behavioral characteristics. The phrase 'See browsers, countries, devices, and more' gives no insight into how the tool actually behaves when invoked.

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?

While the description is technically concise (one short phrase), it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence 'See browsers, countries, devices, and more' fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose or usage. This isn't effective conciseness - it's inadequate specification that leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters including a nested filters object with 14 sub-properties), zero annotation coverage, and the fact that this appears to be a data retrieval/analytics tool, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't even establish basic context about what kind of metrics are being retrieved, for what purpose, or how this differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about any parameters - not even mentioning the required 'website_id' and 'type' parameters, let alone explaining what they mean or how they should be used. For a tool with 8 parameters including complex nested filters, this is a critical gap.

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 'See browsers, countries, devices, and more' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_metrics' without specifying what action is performed or what resource is accessed. It mentions some example metric categories but doesn't state whether this retrieves, analyzes, or aggregates metrics data. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_stats' or 'get_pageviews'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of what makes this tool different from 'get_stats', 'get_pageviews', or other sibling tools. No context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations is provided. The agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over similar-sounding alternatives.

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