get_max_metrics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — no return shape, no coverage window, no data freshness. The path note conveys nothing about how the tool 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?

It is short, but that brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing about the tool's function is front-loaded because nothing about its function is stated at all.

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 no output schema and no annotations describing returned data, the description carries the full burden of explaining what this call produces — and it delivers none of it. An agent has no basis to select this tool over the many other metric getters.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the date is used twice in the path (start=end=cdate), which adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC)'.

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 never states what the tool does. 'the date is repeated twice in the path (start=end=cdate)' is an implementation note about URL construction, not a statement of purpose. An agent cannot tell what metrics are returned or how this differs from the sibling get_max_metrics_range.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_max_metrics_range or other metric endpoints, and no mention of prerequisites or scope. The single sentence is entirely about path formatting.

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