Query Kpis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Return KPI metrics' without noting side effects (though likely read-only), defaults, filtering behavior, or the output schema. The tool has five parameters, so this minimal disclosure leaves many behavioral aspects unknown, resulting in a low score.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is overly terse. It consists of a single sentence with no structure or additional detail. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and utility, making it borderline under-specified.

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 five parameters and multiple sibling tools that overlap in the KPI space, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of metric_filter, the nature of period windows, or how this tool differs from detect_kpi_anomalies or forecast_metric. Even though an output schema exists, it doesn't cover parameter semantics or usage context, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'domain and period window' but does not explain the format of period_to/period_from, what metric_filter accepts, or the meaning of limit. This adds only marginal value beyond the parameter names in the schema, leaving the agent to guess at valid inputs.

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 ('Return') and resource ('KPI metrics') with scoping via 'domain and period window'. It is clear about the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_health or get_executive_summary, which may also return KPI-related data. The purpose is clear enough for an agent but lacks explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With eight sibling tools including detect_kpi_anomalies, forecast_metric, and list_available_metrics, the description does not mention conditions or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema and context, which is risky.

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