getAggregateSchemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'debugging' and 'schema inspection' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any specific permissions. Missing critical behavioral traits for a tool with no 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage context. 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?

Given the tool has only one generic parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. However, behavioral transparency is missing, leaving a gap for a non-annotated tool.

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 100% due to the `__userContext` parameter being documented, but the parameter is a generic context object with no tool-specific meaning. The description adds no value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 that the tool 'Show the underlying storage/schema definitions for Billable Metrics', using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `getAggregateById` by focusing on schema definitions, not aggregate data.

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 tool is described as 'mainly useful for advanced debugging, SQL/schema inspection, and integration work rather than day-to-day business operations'. This provides clear context on when to use it (advanced scenarios) and when not to (day-to-day). No explicit alternatives are given, but the guidance is sufficient.

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