explain_metric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool explains meaning and computation (i.e., returns descriptive information rather than computing live values), which is a useful behavioral clue, but it omits details like output format, whether it's static documentation, and any permissions or side effects.

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 that states the action, resource, and scope with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 one-parameter informational tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves key gaps: it does not explain the metric codes, clarify return format, or distinguish this tool from similarly named siblings. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 should compensate. It lists the enum values (dcr, dsc, dnr, pod, lor, ementor) but does not explain what any of these acronyms mean or how to choose between them, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema's enum.

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 states a specific verb (Explain) and resource (DSP scorecard metric meaning and computation), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not differentiate from siblings like dsp_thresholds or dnr_response_format, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to understand a metric's definition or calculation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools such as dsp_thresholds or pnov_benchmark, nor any stated exclusions.

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