metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: totals are computed against the preceding period, days is ignored when frm is provided, and to defaults to yesterday. It does not mention limits or grouping, but the output schema exists to describe the return shape.

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 compact and well-structured: one front-loaded summary sentence followed by a scannable Args list. Every parameter earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 7-optional-parameter aggregating tool with an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, defaults, and precedence thoroughly. The main gaps are not naming which metrics are included and not indicating when to prefer this over sibling tools like timeseries or overview.

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%, and the description compensates fully by documenting all 7 parameters with concrete semantics: what each filter restricts, the precedence rule for days/frm, and the date format/default. This goes well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 returns totals for every metric over a date range with a comparison to the preceding period. The intended output is unambiguous, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like timeseries or overview.

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?

Parameter behavior is explained well, including the days/frm precedence and the default for to. However, the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timeseries or overview, so the choice of tool is only implied by the word 'Totals'.

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