query_metric

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: the SQL rejection rule, the contract-only naming constraint, and the shape of the result (rows, metric definition, compiled SQL for auditing). It omits permission/auth or rate-limit behavior, but the input/output contract is well surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical constraint and the return contract. No filler; every sentence 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description helpfully names them. It conveys the core constraint (no SQL, contract names only) for a 4-parameter tool. Minor gap: no guidance on how to obtain valid metric/dimension/filter field names within the contract.

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 100%, so the schema already documents metric, filters, dimensions and limit with defaults and constraints (maxItems 3, max 10000). The description only reinforces the 'contract-declared names only' rule, adding no parameter-level detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Executa uma métrica com recortes e filtros opcionais') and clearly separates this tool from siblings like list_metrics/describe_metric by emphasizing execution with dimensions/filters rather than listing or describing metadata.

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?

Gives a clear negative constraint ('NÃO aceita SQL: informe apenas nomes declarados no contrato'), which is essential guidance for invocation. It stops short of explicitly routing to siblings (e.g. use describe_metric first to discover names), so it is strong context but not full when/when-not coverage.

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