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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavioral context by stating time metrics are 'in seconds' and spelling out that resolutions and message counts are included, which the schema's field names alone do not convey. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination.

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, the resource and time window front-loaded, followed by the metric list and a one-line usage cue. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with no output schema and only optional parameters, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the metrics, their units, and the intended question type. It is only marginally short on how the report is delimited (per-record vs aggregate), which the schema cannot supply.

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 days and fields parameters are already fully documented, and the enum gives all selectable fields. The description's 'over the last N days' restates the days parameter without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (returns conversation totals) and resource (this account's conversation report), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It implies account-wide scope in contrast to the per-agent/per-team report siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly, keeping it just short of a 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?

It gives clear positive usage context: 'Use it for questions about volume or response times.' That is enough for an agent to route to it, but there is no explicit when-not or mention of the sibling reports (get_agent_report, get_team_report, get_account_summary) that overlap in topic.

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