List Available Metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Discover'/'list' strongly imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, but this is never stated outright, nor are permissions, pagination, or scope limits described. For a simple read tool this is adequate but leaves the safety profile to inference.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the usage cue. No filler, though the second sentence's 'Essential discovery tool for agents to...' is mildly redundant with the first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description already summarizes what is listed (metrics, domains, time periods). For a one-optional-parameter discovery tool this is nearly complete; only the read-only/auth posture is unaddressed.

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 the sole 'domain' parameter (with examples and default behavior) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb ('discover', 'list') and resource ('KPI metrics, business domains, historical time periods'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself implicitly from query_kpis/detect_kpi_anomalies/forecast_metric by positioning itself as the metadata-inspection step, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context: use it 'before formulating specific queries, anomaly detections, or predictive forecasts' — i.e., as a prerequisite discovery step. This routes the agent effectively, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the alternatives by name.

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