calculate_growth_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says what is computed, not that the operation is a side-effect-free read, what happens with malformed or partial records, or how missing fields are treated. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and outputs front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, and the metrics list tells the agent what comes back. The gap is the input: with no record-field guidance anywhere, an agent cannot reliably construct the 'records' payload, which is a meaningful omission for a computation tool.

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 has 0% description coverage and the single 'records' parameter is untyped in spirit (array of free-form objects). The description says metrics are computed 'for records' but never explains which fields each record must contain (impressions, clicks, spend, conversions) to produce CTR/CPC/ROAS, leaving the critical input contract undocumented.

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 clear verb (calculate) and enumerates the specific metrics produced (CTR, CPC, CPA, CPL, conversion rate, ROAS), so the resource is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also touch metrics, such as compare_campaign_metrics, normalize_growth_records, or analyze_growth_query.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus compare_campaign_metrics, analyze_growth_query, or normalize_growth_records, nor any prerequisite about state or inputs. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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