get_operational_metrics

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning 'latest values and recent trend', indicating data type but does not specify safety (read-only), pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence conveying purpose and usage. No redundant or unnecessary information. Content is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list or dictionary, units, time range for trend). Given no output schema, more detail would help the agent understand what to expect. However, for a single-param tool, it is partially complete.

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 sole parameter 'slug' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds value by stating 'Pass the company slug', clarifying its purpose as a company identifier. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get all operational KPIs for a company with latest values and recent trend', specifying verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_revenue_mix or get_market_share, though the focus on 'operational KPIs' provides implicit distinction.

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?

Description instructs to pass the company slug, giving basic usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when detailed KPI breakdown is needed) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and resource.

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