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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds material context beyond them: spam and test tickets are excluded from counts, no ticket body text is returned, and access is restricted by role and plan tier. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of describing response shape or cost of a 366-day pull.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose before adding exclusions and eligibility. It is dense and slightly tangled in the parenthetical about the 90th percentile, but no sentence is wasted.

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, the description usefully enumerates the metrics returned and notes the exclusion of spam and test tickets, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The only real gap is how this differs from the sibling reporting tools.

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 defines from, to, and product_id defaults and formats. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the date-range concept, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 resource (ticket metrics over a date range) and enumerates the exact measures returned: volume, answered/closed counts, first-reply and close durations with median and 90th percentile, broken down by day, site, and teammate. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the close cousins get_reply_times and ticket_counts.

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 supplies a real eligibility gate ('For owners and admins, on Pro and higher'), which is genuine usage context. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over get_reply_times or ticket_counts, which cover adjacent reporting ground, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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