DORA metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description's added value is the return content (four keys plus tiering), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about defaults, filtering behavior, or how tiers are computed.

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 padding, and the most important information (the four keys) comes first. It is a fragment rather than a sentence with a verb, which slightly weakens the framing but costs no space.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, read-only metric tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential question of what the caller gets back. Only the default time window and the meaning of the tier boundaries are left implicit, both minor for this complexity level.

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%, including the full period enumeration and the last_90_days default, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds nothing about period or service, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is this complete.

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 names the specific resource (DORA metrics) and enumerates exactly what comes back: the four keys plus an Elite/High/Medium/Low tier per key and overall. That is far more concrete than a restated title. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_mttr or get_change_failure_breakdown, which cover overlapping sub-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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the many adjacent metric tools (get_kpi_trend, compare_periods, get_change_failure_breakdown). No prerequisites, no mention of the default period, and no exclusions are offered, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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