metrics_get_qp_resource_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about result volume, pagination, or what 'registered' means in this aggregator context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but at two lines it is under-specified rather than efficient; the endpoint path ('GET /aggregator/api/metrics') largely duplicates the title and annotation title, so that line does not earn much of its place.

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 is the only place an agent could learn what a 'registered metric' record contains or how results are shaped, and it says nothing. For a listing endpoint in a crowded metrics_* family, the definition is too thin to call confidently.

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 single optional apiVersion parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing further, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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 pairs a generic verb with a vague resource ('Returns registered metrics') and appends the raw endpoint path. It is not pure tautology, but it does not reconcile the mismatch with its own name ('qp_resource_details') and gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings such as metrics_get_resource_usage_metrics or metrics_get_resource_criteria.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which of the many metrics_* siblings to prefer instead. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the endpoint string.

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