roasr_metrics_breakdown

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it returns segments with metrics, explains that reach/frequency are Meta-only and null for other data, and clarifies that data is as of the latest snapshot date (asOf) within the window. This gives useful context about data freshness and limitations without repeating schema information.

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?

The description is two sentences long and immediately conveys the core purpose and key nuances. It is front-loaded with the primary function and dimension list, and the second sentence adds essential caveats without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (segments with metrics) and includes important caveats (Meta-only reach/frequency, snapshot date). It also covers the main dimension options. It does not explicitly address pagination or potential error cases, but for a breakdown tool this is reasonably complete.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about what the metrics include and the snapshot date behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Metrics broken down by dimension' followed by a specific list of possible dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like roasr_metrics_summary and roasr_metrics_daily by focusing on breakdown by dimension, including explicit dimension values.

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 usage is implied through the description ('Metrics broken down by dimension'), making it clear this is for dimension-level analysis rather than summary or daily metrics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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