get_analytics_group_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: 'Enterprise-gated. Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans,' disclosing plan entitlement and a concrete error status an agent will encounter. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, and the highest-value information is front-loaded: purpose and return shape first, then usage scenario, then the enterprise restriction. Every clause earns its place, including the two short clauses covering the 403 behavior.

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 complex tool with 32 parameters, 3 required fields, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, its intended use case, the required parameter combination, and the plan-level restriction. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing critical is missing; the only small gap is not naming the exact time-window parameter keys, though the schema covers them.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, warranting the baseline 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only highlighting that metadata_key is required alongside the time window; it does not elaborate on formats or constraints that the schema doesn't already provide.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('paginated metadata breakdown'), and the distinctive grouping mechanism ('grouped by the required metadata_key'). It even names the return fields (total_groups, group_count, metadata_groups array), making it unambiguous versus the many sibling analytics tools and the get_analytics_group_users/models/providers variants.

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 says when to use it: 'Use this for custom breakdowns like per-environment or per-feature analysis', and instructs the caller to 'pass metadata_key in addition to the time window'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'custom breakdowns' framing plus the self-descriptive sibling names make the routing nearly inference-free.

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