get_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'pre-approved' (suggesting authorization) and 'fixed aggregation' (implying immutability), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it detail potential side effects or permissions. The behavior is somewhat transparent but not fully.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action ('Compute a pre-approved metric') and then add constraints. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It lacks details on parameter formats, output expectations, and prerequisites. It does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'grouped/filtered by allowed dimensions', which loosely maps to dimensions and filters, but does not explain the 'metric' (required), 'limit' (ignored), or specifics of filters format. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'compute' for a metric resource, and specifies optional grouping/filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'list_metrics' (which just lists available metrics) by emphasizing computation with a fixed aggregation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to compute a pre-approved metric) and hints at constraints like 'allowed dimensions', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names. The context of sibling tools partially fills this gap.

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