transactions_aggregate_by_metric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'aggregated sales' and references an endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, filtering limits, or data freshness beyond what the annotations provide.

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 with two sentences and a URL, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be structured to include parameter context or return type hints without adding length. The front-loading is adequate.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., grouped counts or time-series). It does not. With 6 parameters and moderate schema coverage, the description is incomplete for full understanding. Annotations cover safety but not usage context.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description itself does not explain any parameters beyond the metric path segment, failing to clarify the semantics of startDate, endDate, hosting, or the aggregation granularity. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 it returns 'aggregated sales grouped by a metric path segment' and maps to a specific endpoint. It indicates the resource and verb but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transactions_aggregate_by_hosting' or other metrics-related aggregates, though the metric parameter provides some 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for grouping by metric, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist with similar aggregation patterns, but the description provides no direction on selection.

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