apps_beta_tester_usages_get_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only report, not pagination behavior despite a 'limit' param, not whether results are aggregated or time-series, not any rate limit or auth scope.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the same path is repeated in a redundant parenthetical, and no informative sentence exists to be front-loaded.

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 metrics endpoint with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the metrics represent and how the grouping/period params shape the result. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to interpret the response.

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 all five parameters (id, limit, period, groupBy, filter_betaTesters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 is a verbatim restatement of the endpoint path, printed twice, with no explanation of what 'betaTesterUsages metrics' actually reports (counts of testers? sessions? installs?). It parrots the tool name rather than stating a purpose in prose, which is the definition of tautology.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. The sibling list contains closely related metrics tools such as beta_groups_beta_tester_usages_get_metrics, beta_testers_beta_tester_usages_get_metrics, and builds_beta_build_usages_get_metrics, and nothing here helps an agent choose among them or understand that this variant is scoped to an app.

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