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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output metrics (average close time, velocity rating) but does not disclose how the calculation works, what entity_id does, or any potential side effects or limitations. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the bare metric.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core question. It wastes no words, effectively conveying the primary purpose. However, its extreme brevity leaves gaps that affect other dimensions.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It provides only the metric names, not interpretation, data scope, or the role of entity_id, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke properly.

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?

The only parameter, entity_id, is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaning or context for the parameter, making it impossible to know if it is optional or how to use it.

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 the tool measures how quickly findings are resolved, specifically mentioning average close time and velocity rating. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on deadlines, trends, or predictions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, relying solely on the tool's name and metric definition.

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