get_daily_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is pre-aggregated server-side and that the tool returns totals, implying a read-only operation. But it lacks explicit statements about permissions, rate limits, date range constraints, or side-effect-free behavior. It adds some context but not enough for full transparency.

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 two sentences, tightly focused and front-loaded with the core function. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage rationale. No redundant information or filler.

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?

The description covers the core function and use case well, but it leaves the five parameters completely unexplained. With no schema descriptions and all parameters optional, an agent has no guidance on how to construct a valid request. The output schema may document return values, but the input side is severely under-specified.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (tags, project, user_id, from_timestamp, to_timestamp). It doesn't explain what these filters do, what formats are expected, or how they affect the rollup. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states it fetches Langfuse's pre-aggregated daily metrics rollup, returning per-day totals. The verb 'Fetch' plus the specific resource 'daily metrics rollup' makes the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pre-aggregated server-side metrics.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: use when wanting high-level trends over a long window, and notes it's faster than aggregating traces yourself. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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