list_common_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists metrics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds a helpful tip, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on behavioral traits like output format or operational constraints. For a simple listing tool, this is minimally viable but could be improved with more 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'category' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the categories further or giving examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'List commonly used XBRL financial metrics with their tags.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('XBRL financial metrics with their tags'), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_financial_metric' or 'get_industry_metric', which might retrieve specific metrics rather than list common ones, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Helpful for finding the right metric name.' This suggests using the tool when you need to discover or identify metrics, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_financial_metric' or 'get_industry_metric', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is useful but not comprehensive.

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