get_metric_definition

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. It hints at the return content (definition + formula) but discloses nothing about permissions, valid metric identifiers, or failure behavior. For a read-only lookup this is low-risk, but no behavioral context is added.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the action and the returned artifact compactly.

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-value detail is not required, and the tool has only one simple parameter. However, for a definition-lookup tool the description never tells the agent what metric identifiers are valid or when to reach for it over calculating tools, leaving a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'metric' parameter. It only implies the parameter is a growth metric name; it gives no format, no valid-value examples, and no indication of what identifiers are accepted.

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+resource: 'Return a concise definition and calculation formula for a growth metric.' An agent can tell this is a lookup/reference tool, distinct from calculation siblings like calculate_growth_metrics or compare_campaign_metrics. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling for differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from the many sibling metrics tools. The agent must infer that this is for looking up a definition rather than computing values.

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