game_center_details_classic_matchmaking_requests_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 almost nothing. The GET verb weakly signals a read-only operation, but there is no mention of permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what the metrics dataset contains.

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 entire content is a single path duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste rather than front-loaded information. Nothing useful is conveyed by the repetition.

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 six-parameter metrics endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides no context at all — not what the metrics represent, not the units (queue seconds), not the response shape.

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 schema already documents id, sort, limit, groupBy, granularity, and filter_result including enums. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies given the rich 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?

The description is just the HTTP path repeated twice, essentially restating the tool name in URL form. An agent can infer that this retrieves classic matchmaking request metrics for a given game center detail, but there is no explanatory sentence and no differentiation from the sibling game_center_details_rule_based_matchmaking_requests_get_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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling metrics tool to pick instead. The path alone leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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