gmb_performance_locations_getdailymetricstimeseries

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

The annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that only daily data is supported (hourly is not) and that the return is per-date values. It also includes an example request illustrating required parameters, which provides practical operational insight not present in the annotations.

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 starts with the redundant HTTP endpoint 'GET v1/{+name}:getDailyMetricsTimeSeries' which repeats the tool name, and includes a long example URL that could be summarized. While the core explanation is only two sentences, the example is verbose and somewhat repetitive. It is not poorly structured but contains unnecessary duplication, earning a 3.

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 tool has 17 parameters but full schema descriptions, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for selection and basic invocation. The description explains the daily-only limitation and gives an example request, which covers key usage details. Minor gaps include lack of response format details and no reference to the multi-metric sibling, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's function. Overall, it is fairly complete for the complexity involved.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's example request shows how to combine dailyMetric and dailyRange start/end dates, adding a small practical illustration. However, it does not meaningfully enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides, so 3 is appropriate.

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 returns daily metric values for a given date range using the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource (daily metrics time series for a location). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool gmb_performance_locations_fetchmultidailymetricstimeseries, which also handles time series data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 a usage constraint ('Only daily data is available. Hourly metrics are not supported'), implying when this tool should not be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or compare to the multi-metric sibling. Guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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