beta_groups__public_link_usages__metrics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that data is aggregated time-series, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences including the endpoint, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and return type. Highly concise.

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 simple read-metrics tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and includes the endpoint. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (id and limit). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies it returns aggregated time-series data. Among sibling tools, it uniquely targets public link usage metrics, distinguishing it from other beta group metrics tools like beta_groups__beta_tester_usages__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 notes that the tool returns 'aggregated time-series data, not individual records,' which implicitly guides when to use it (aggregated metrics) versus when not (individual records). However, no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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