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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that by disclosing the unit (seconds) for the two time-based metrics, which is absent from the schema enum values. It still says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements.

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 dense sentences that front-load the aggregation scope and finish with filter dimensions, followed by a short endpoint mapping. The 'Trengo: GET /reporting/metrics' line is mildly redundant but useful for API traceability.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returnable metrics and notes the unit for the time metrics, so an agent knows what comes back. Remaining gaps are pagination behavior and date-pair requirements, which are partly covered by the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'filter by team, channel, label or direction' restates what the schema already says without adding format or semantics beyond it; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (aggregate) and resource (support metrics) and enumerates exactly which metrics are returned, so the tool's output scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_agent_performance or get_ticket_details_report, which also return support analytics.

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 implies usage by naming the filtering dimensions (team, channel, label, direction) and the aggregation period, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. An agent must infer whether to reach for this rather than get_agent_performance.

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