list_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered by structured data. The description does add meaningful access-control context ('metrics this agent may query'), i.e. the result set is permission-scoped rather than a global catalog, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or freshness.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or the annotations.

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 no-parameter, read-only catalog call with an output schema that documents the returned shape, the description covers purpose, scope, and content adequately. The missing piece is guidance on how this relates to the sibling discovery/describe/query tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The stated 'business definitions' briefly signals result content, which is a small bonus on top of the empty schema.

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?

Clear verb (List) plus resource (metrics) and scope ('this agent may query'), with an added hint at returned content ('business definitions'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_dimensions or describe_metric, but the resource noun alone is differentiating enough that an agent can tell it from the other list/describe tools.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call to run before describe_metric or query_metric, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is offered.

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