get_incident_metrics_by_team

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds context by naming the data source (PagerDuty Analytics) and return format (JSON string), going beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and metrics, then provides a detailed parameter list. While efficient, the 'Args:' section repeats structure from the schema, adding length. Still concise overall.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, optional fields, no enums), the description covers all parameters, states the return type (JSON), and provides usage context. Output schema exists, so return details are not required. No gaps identified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including required fields (created_at_start, created_at_end), filters (team_ids, service_ids, urgency), and optional controls (time_zone, order, order_by, aggregate_unit). Every parameter is addressed clearly.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves aggregated incident metrics per team from PagerDuty Analytics, listing specific metrics (MTTA, MTTR, escalation counts, etc.) and use cases (team performance comparisons, dashboards). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident_metrics_all and get_incident_metrics_by_service.

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 suggests using the tool for team performance comparisons and dashboards, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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