beta_groups__public_link_usages__metrics

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the response is aggregated time-series data rather than individual records, setting expectations for output granularity without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences long, starts with the main action, and includes the endpoint reference. Every sentence contributes meaning—purpose and output type—with no unnecessary filler.

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 provides sufficient context for a simple read-only metrics tool: it defines the resource, the kind of data returned (aggregated time-series), and the endpoint. Despite lacking an output schema, the characterization of the data as aggregated and time-series gives the agent a clear expectation. It could go deeper on units or date ranges, but this is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 both 'id' and 'limit' are documented. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. Notably, the 'limit' schema description incorrectly says 'groups' instead of 'data points', but the tool description does not address this flaw.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'public link usages metrics for a beta group', and explicitly notes it returns aggregated time-series data, not individual records. It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics tools by naming the specific metric type and endpoint.

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 sibling metrics tools like beta_tester_usages__metrics or builds__beta_build_usages__metrics. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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