Problem
People can read the same metric name and assume different definitions, even when they agree on the displayed number.
Solution
Place an accessible explanation beside the metric. State what is counted, the time window, important exclusions, and who maintains the definition.
Use plain language before technical formulas. Make longer detail available without forcing it into a small tooltip.
Keep the definition linked to the calculation so changes are reviewed together. Where possible, reuse one definition across dashboards instead of maintaining separate copies.
Use when
A metric name is ambiguous, the audience has different backgrounds, or the number will be quoted elsewhere.
Don’t use when
The metric is genuinely self-evident to everyone who sees it—a CPU percentage on an engineering dashboard needs no gloss, and adding one dilutes the affordance where it matters.
Trade-offs
Definitions become misleading when queries change without a matching update. Hidden explanations may be missed by the people who need them most. Useful definitions also need someone responsible for maintaining them.
Checklist
- Does the definition say what is counted in the reader’s language?
- Does it state the window?
- Does it list exclusions—internal traffic, bots, test accounts, refunds?
- Does it name an owner?
- Is the definition stored with the metric, or retyped per dashboard?
- When the query changes, what makes the definition change?
- Is the affordance visible enough that someone who doesn’t know they’re confused might click it?
- Is the same metric defined identically everywhere it appears?
- Does the definition distinguish this metric from the similarly-named one next to it?
- Could this be a modelling-layer definition rather than a tooltip?
Compare
Looker answers this structurally with LookML: metrics are defined in a modelled layer and every chart inherits that definition, so the tooltip is generated rather than written and cannot drift from the query. Grafana has no notion of a metric definition at all—panels carry a description field, and whether it holds a real definition or nothing is a matter of author discipline. Honeycomb sidesteps some of it by keeping raw events: the derivation is visible in the query rather than hidden behind a metric name someone chose months ago. Sentry has an advantage most products lack, in that its core objects are concrete enough to need little definition; an error either happened or it didn’t, and the ambiguity lives in grouping rules rather than in counting.
Related
Data source badge names the source. Ratio and rate needs a clear denominator. Metric targets depends on an agreed definition.
KPI tile presents the value. Hover detail can reveal a short explanation, with another format for longer text.