ticket_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the exact metrics returned, which is valuable, but it never states the default reporting window (months=3), what as_of means, or that results are aggregated/read-only. Output shape is covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the grouping key followed by the metrics. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, output schema present, no nested objects), so a one-liner is close to sufficient. However, the undefined time-window semantics (months, as_of) are a real gap for an aggregation tool, since the returned numbers change materially with those parameters.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. The critical behavior — that the window defaults to the last 3 months and can be shifted via as_of — is invisible to the agent and must be guessed from raw JSON titles. Only the 'hours' unit and the reported metrics are clarified.

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 names a specific resource (tickets) and the exact grouping dimensions (city and category) plus the three metrics computed (volume, % resolved, mean resolution time in hours). That grouping distinguishes it implicitly from tickets_by_month, though the sibling is never named. The verb is only implied by 'stats', so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the city/category grouping signals that this tool fits questions about where tickets come from and how resolution varies by category, while tickets_by_month covers the time dimension. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no naming of the sibling alternative.

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