list_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path, which hints at the upstream API shape, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or result limits beyond what the schema's page_size/next_page_key fields imply.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though the endpoint parenthetical is marginally more useful to a developer than to an agent.

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 read-only four-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (keys, units, dimensions). What's missing is the routing information an agent needs given three metric-related siblings in the toolset.

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 75%, so text, next_page_key, and metric_selector are already documented with examples; page_size is self-explanatory via its min/max bounds. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when 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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('metric keys and their units and dimensions'), plus the underlying endpoint. An agent understands the operation, but the description never distinguishes it from the closely-named sibling query_metrics or get_metric_descriptor.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus query_metrics (which presumably fetches actual metric data) or get_metric_descriptor (which presumably returns details for one metric). The agent must infer the discovery-vs-query distinction from names alone.

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