get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters in the schema), error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get a breakdown of metrics' establishes the action, 'by a given dimension' specifies the key functionality, and the parenthetical list provides helpful examples without verbosity. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a complex tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the schema documents parameters well, the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or output format. The agent would struggle to understand the full context of tool usage without additional information about what metrics are returned and how they're structured.

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, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example dimension values ('url, referrer, browser, os, device, country, event, etc.') which corresponds to the 'type' parameter's enum. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get a breakdown of metrics by a given dimension... for a website.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('metrics'), and scope ('for a website'), and lists example dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_pageviews', which likely provide different types of analytics data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_pageviews', nor does it explain what makes this tool distinct (e.g., dimensional breakdowns vs. aggregate metrics). The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit context.

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