post--v1-analytics-metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'query' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., time-series data). For a complex analytics tool with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool where the schema provides extensive documentation, though it may be too brief for full clarity.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader analytics context, what 'account metrics' entail, or how results are structured. For a POST request with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already details each parameter thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, formats, and enums. No additional context or examples are provided in the description to enhance understanding.

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 'Query account metrics' states the basic action (query) and resource (account metrics), but it's vague about what specific metrics are available and how this differs from sibling tools like 'post--v1-analytics-logs' or 'post--v1-analytics-usage-metrics'. It doesn't specify that this is for email analytics or mention the comprehensive metrics list available in the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for analytics and stats (e.g., 'post--v1-analytics-logs', 'get--v3-domain-stats-total'), the description fails to indicate this tool's specific use case, such as for detailed, customizable metric queries over time with dimensions.

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