metrics_get_resource_usage_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The only behavioral claim the description adds is a "current user" scope, and that is ambiguous against the orgLevel parameter, which implies a broader aggregation scope; nothing is said about granularity, time range, or what aggregation is performed.

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 the raw path "GET /aggregator/api/metrics/deployment/aggregate" duplicates the annotation title and occupies space that could have described the returned aggregation. The sentence is efficient but under-informative rather than tautological.

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 and an aggregation tool whose entire value is knowing what gets aggregated over which period and scope, the description leaves the agent unable to predict the response. The orgLevel parameter and the relationship to the by_project/by_user siblings are unresolved.

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 50%: apiVersion is documented in the schema, but orgLevel has no description anywhere. The description could have explained what orgLevel=true changes (current-user vs organization-wide aggregation), which is precisely the ambiguity that matters here, and it does not.

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 states a verb and resource ("returns aggregated metrics values") and adds a scope ("of the current user"), which partly distinguishes it from siblings like metrics_get_resource_usage_metrics_by_project and _by_user. However, it never says which metrics or measures are aggregated, nor what the aggregation window is, so the purpose stays at the level of the name plus endpoint path.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (metrics_get_resource_usage_metrics_by_project, _by_user, metrics_get_qp_resource_details), even though those siblings cover similar ground. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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