Get Fraud Metrics

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (matching the readOnlyHint annotation) and adds tenant-scoped context. However, annotations already cover read safety; the description does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, required permissions, or what happens with unsupported windows.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and every word contributes value.

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 that parameters have no descriptions, the output schema exists (so return format is covered), and annotations cover safety, the description could still be more complete. It does not explain what 'fraud backtesting and monitoring metrics' entail or how to choose the window. It is adequate but not fully informative.

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 description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'for a supported active window' but does not clarify the 'window' enum values or the purpose of 'score_version'. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's enum and type.

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 fetches tenant-scoped read-only fraud backtesting and monitoring metrics for a supported active window. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'fraud backtesting and monitoring metrics' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_fraud_assessment', which may cause ambiguity.

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 like 'get_fraud_assessment' or other metric tools. The context signals list many sibling tools but the description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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