list_metric_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool returns item names and filters by org_code if given. However, it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or other behavioral traits. Behavior is adequately described for a simple query tool.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a concrete example, and the third explains an optional parameter. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, explains all parameters, and gives an example. It does not specify return format, but that is acceptable given the lack of output schema. It is nearly complete 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'category' with an example, 'item_query' as a search term, and 'org_code' as a filter for organization-specific items. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify the format of item_query (e.g., substring match).

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 tool queries metric item names within a category, with an explicit example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_metric_categories' and 'get_institution_metrics' by focusing on items within a category.

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 an example and explains the effect of org_code, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_metric_categories' or 'get_institution_metrics', nor are there any when-not-to-use caveats.

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