overview_csat

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the required `reports:manage` permission and a GET endpoint (implying a read-only call), but says nothing about rate limits, aggregation behavior, or what the response contains.

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?

It is short, but a raw endpoint path and 'Tags: Reports' consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke. The permission requirement is the only sentence that earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only report tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it, but an agent still has no idea what the CSAT payload looks like or what range yields meaningful results.

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% and the single `days` parameter is already fully documented with default, bounds, and clamping behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 body largely restates the tool name ('Get Overview CSAT') and adds only plumbing details (endpoint path, tag). It never explains what CSAT data is returned or how this differs from sibling report tools like overview_sla or overview_counts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling report to pick for a different metric. The only usable filter is the permission note, which gates access but does not inform selection.

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