get_metrics_data

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

With no annotations, the description must itself convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is standard for a retrieval tool. However, it does not mention potential nuances like return format, pagination, or timezone handling. The guidance about get_service_metrics is more usage context than behavior. Overall, adequate but not rich in disclosure.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core action, and the second provides essential prerequisite guidance. No filler or 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?

For a read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and a prerequisite. It does not describe the output structure, but 'time-series performance data' gives a reasonable expectation. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could be enhanced with a note about the time range parameters' defaults.

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 all parameters. The description adds little beyond what's in the schema; it mentions 'specific metric' and points to get_service_metrics, but the schema already states that metric_name is 'as returned by get_service_metrics'. Therefore, no significant extra semantic value is provided.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('time-series performance data'), and scope ('for a specific metric of a service'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing get_service_metrics as the discovery step.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_service_metrics first to discover available metric names.' This names the alternative tool and provides a clear sequential workflow, fully covering when/how to use this tool.

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