get_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds the behavioral detail that the date range is inclusive and expects YYYY-MM-DD format. However, it does not disclose the return value shape, error behavior for invalid metrics, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the core calculation and date constraints, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about return values, acceptable values for metric_name, and error handling. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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 offers no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by clarifying the date format and inclusive nature of start_date and end_date. It does not explicitly describe metric_name, but the term 'governed metric' and the tool name make its role reasonably clear.

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 uses the specific verb 'calculate' and names the resource as 'one governed metric', clearly distinguishing this from list_metrics, get_metric_definition, and comparison tools. It also specifies the date range scope, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for computing a single metric over a date range, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the purpose is clear.

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