Device experience metric breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the health scale (0 poor, 1 average, 2 good, 3 unknown) and that it can optionally restrict to metrics with issues, which goes beyond what annotations convey about the operation's nature.

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 that front-load the main verb and object, then detail the return payload and optional filter. No filler words 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?

With no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the returned fields (score, health with numeric mapping, display name, summary line) and the optional restriction. Given the tool's moderate complexity and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already provides rich parameter descriptions (source for scoreProfileId from dex_meta, agentResourceId from som_computers_list). The description only lightly touches on filterType via 'Optionally restrict to only the metrics that currently have issues,' but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Retrieves the indicator-wise DEX metric breakdown for one device under a score profile', a specific verb+object+scope. It lists the exact contained data (individual metrics with score, health, display name, summary line), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from summary-level DEX tools.

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?

It states the tool targets one device under a score profile and supports an optional 'metricsWithIssues' filter, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g. dex_device_experience) or state when not to use it, though the scope is implicit.

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