beta_groups__beta_tester_usages__metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns aggregated time-series data, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences plus an endpoint reference. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately states the tool's purpose and output type, but it lacks guidance on parameter usage (e.g., period, groupBy) and common patterns. Given the tool has 5 parameters, more context would be helpful for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'beta tester usages metrics', and scope 'for a beta group'. It clarifies aggregated vs individual data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'beta_testers__beta_tester_usages__metrics', which serves a similar purpose for individual testers.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'beta_testers__beta_tester_usages__metrics' or when not to use it.

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