transaction_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, and imposes local limits on array responses (100 rows, 256 KiB) with truncation reported. However, it lacks other behavioral details like error handling, what happens on invalid dates, or the exact output structure, leaving gaps.

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 dense and includes a confusing test-specific example ('Comma-separated battles,battles-modern selected both series...') which is not a general usage instruction. The purpose is front-loaded, but the subsequent statements are scattered and not well organized, making it harder to parse.

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?

Complete usage of this tool requires understanding what metric series are available, the date format, and the output structure. The description does not specify valid metric names, the date format, or how the returned data is structured. It also references 'declared filters' without defining them. Overall, it is insufficient for an agent to confidently call this tool with valid inputs.

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?

The description gives a hint that 'metrics' is a comma-separated list (via the example 'battles,battles-modern'), but it does not define the expected format for 'from' (e.g., timestamp vs date string). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must fully compensate, but it only partially does.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read named transaction metric series from an explicit date.' This clearly states the action and object, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like transaction_lookup or hive_transaction which handle individual records rather than aggregated metric series.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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