query_queue_volumes

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

Adds 'MAX 300 queue IDs' which is a constraint, but this is already present in the schema. No additional behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or response format. Annotations are minimal, so description carries some burden but is adequate.

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 sentences: first explains what it does, second provides usage context. No extraneous words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 the three parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a use case. It does not detail the output shape, but for a simple aggregation tool this is acceptable. Could mention return format briefly, but not essential.

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% with examples. The description repeats the max constraint but does not add new meaning or clarify parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it returns a breakdown of conversation counts per queue in a date range. The verb 'returns' and resource 'breakdown of conversations per queue' are specific and distinguish from sibling tools like sample_conversations_by_queue.

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?

Explicitly states it is useful for comparing workload across queues. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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