GetLogsMetric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authorization errors (403) and rate limits (429), which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only, response format beyond examples, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it's bloated with extensive HTTP response details (e.g., multiple error codes and examples) that could be streamlined. While structured, the verbosity reduces efficiency, as not all details add value beyond what might be inferred from context.

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 the tool has an output schema (implied by the response examples) and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and includes error handling, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 the parameter 'metric_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The name of the log-based metric.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific log-based metric'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ListLogsMetrics' or 'GetSpansMetric', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool unique for log-based metrics.

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. With siblings like 'ListLogsMetrics' (likely for listing multiple metrics) and 'GetSpansMetric' (for spans metrics), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate, leaving usage ambiguous.

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