get_customer_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and 'Read-only execution' is its only behavioral claim. It says nothing about pagination, limits, permissions, time ranges, or what the aggregation returns. For a metrics tool with zero annotation coverage, that leaves nearly everything an agent needs to know undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the purpose comes first. The second sentence earns its place because no annotations exist to say otherwise, though the wording is slightly mechanical.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the date format, how the limit affects the result, the aggregation scope or grouping, and the shape of the return value, all of which must now be inferred.

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 0%, so the schema only supplies types, a pattern, and a range. The description never mentions startDate or limit, so it adds no meaning and leaves the date format, the default, and the limit's effect unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves aggregated customer metrics'. That is clear enough to act on, and it distinguishes it from the only sibling, update_customer_status. However, it gives no clue which metrics are aggregated, so the scope of the resource stays vague.

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 given on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as whether a customer ID or date range is required to scope the query. Usage can only be inferred 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.