metrics_details_by_metric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral insights: server cap at 50, unreliability of order=desc, sortBy restrictions, and known contradictions (partnerType upgrade). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 concise, one paragraph with a clear structure: purpose, output format, filter capabilities, key constraint (limit), and a link to documentation. Every sentence adds essential information without verbosity.

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 14 parameters, 6 enums, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output fields, and important parameters. It includes a link for full details. However, it does not elaborate on the exact relationship to 'sale metric' or clarify pagination behavior beyond offset/limit.

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 coverage is 93%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting behavioral quirks (e.g., order=desc unreliable, partnerType upgrade excluded) and providing context on return fields. However, it does not describe each parameter individually beyond the schema.

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 'License-event details underlying a sale metric' with specific output fields and mentions the API endpoint. It distinguishes itself as a detailed view under a sale metric, which is distinct from aggregate metrics tools like metrics_churn among siblings.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., metrics_details_export, metrics_churn). The usage is implied by the description of detailed events, but no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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