Conversation Stats By Member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is fully covered. The description contributes the aggregation semantics (per-member grouping over a date range), but says nothing about return format or pagination, leaving a gap that the annotations do not fill.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and its grouping dimension. No filler, though the brevity leaves little room for the usage and behavioral context that would round it out.

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 statistics tool with three fully documented parameters and complete annotations, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though the specific metric definition could be sharper.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (including 'use organization_list to find it' for organizationId). The description's 'date range' and 'per organization member' phrasing aligns with these but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: conversation statistics per organization member over a date range, plus the clarifying 'who handled how many conversations'. This distinguishes it from ungrouped siblings like conversation_stats and conversation_totals, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as conversation_stats, conversation_metrics, and conversation_totals present, the description never states which one an agent should pick for a per-member breakdown versus a global aggregate.

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