Get Script Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the tool returns time-bucketed analytics, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like what time range 'over time' spans, whether results are paginated, or whether prior authentication is required.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The main action is front-loaded ('Gets execution metrics for a script project'), and the second sentence justifies its place by describing what data the agent can expect, which aids tool selection.

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 simple read-only tool, structured context is rich: an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adequately states purpose and return types; the only ambiguity is the unbounded 'over time' range, since no date-range parameter exists.

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%, with all three parameters (script_id, user_google_email, metrics_granularity) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Gets execution metrics for a script project') and enumerates the returned data (active users, total executions, failed executions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among the script-related siblings (get_script_project, list_script_processes), it is clearly the only analytics/metrics tool, though it never names a sibling explicitly to differentiate itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 130 siblings including overlapping Apps Script tools like list_script_processes and get_script_project, the description offers no routing criteria, no exclusions, and no contextual trigger for when an agent should choose metrics over a process list or project details.

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