overview_message_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required `reports:manage` permission scope, but says nothing about aggregation granularity, time bucketing, or what the response contains for a reporting endpoint that has no output schema.

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 and front-loaded, but part of that brevity comes from boilerplate rather than substance — the raw HTTP path and "Tags: Reports" line consume space without informing tool selection, while the actual metric definition is omitted.

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 reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the volume report returns and how `days` shapes it. The permission note is the only added value; the core semantics of the metric are missing.

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 fully documented in the schema, including default, bounds, and clamping behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 description names the resource ("Overview Message Volume") and a generic verb ("Get"), but never explains what the metric actually measures — message counts over time, per channel, per agent? It also does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling report tools such as overview_counts or overview_charts, so an agent cannot tell from the text which report it needs.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the overview_* siblings, and no stated preconditions beyond the permission. The agent is left to infer routing purely from the tool name.

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