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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by defining how resolution_rate is computed (billing-recognized AI-resolved, not reversed, with resolved/cases counts) and by flagging the null case when no case was opened. It also warns that cited_7d/handoffs_7d retain their names but count over the requested day window, a genuine behavioural quirk an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the follow-on sentences each add distinct information (metric definition, null behaviour, window semantics). Minor deduction for the closing clause 'retain their names but count over days', which is compressed to the point of ambiguity about what 'days' refers to.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the window, the headline metric definition and the null edge case. The main remaining gap is not positioning this against agent_analytics, which an agent choosing between the two would want.

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 coverage is 100% so the two parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning: the window governs current, previous and daily series, and the _7d suffix in returned field names is explicitly declared not to mean a fixed 7-day window. That is semantics the schema alone cannot convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus an enumeration of the KPI families returned (conversation/resolution/handoff, rule/source/condition), which is far more than the title restates. The sentence 'This is the one source of resolution_rate and handoff counts' actively separates it from neighbours such as agent_analytics or workspace_primary_agent_dashboard.

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 exclusivity claim ('the one source of resolution_rate and handoff counts') implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the adjacent analytics questions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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