get_agent_conversations

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the tool's read-only nature. The description adds that it is a metric (aggregated data) and specifies the date format. However, it does not disclose whether the response is a list of agents with conversation counts or something else. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and format. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from additional structural elements like bullet points or separate sections.

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 has no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a list of agents with conversation counts). It fails to do so, leaving ambiguity about the response format. The tool is simple, but this omission reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both start_date and end_date (format YYYY-MM-DD). The description reiterates the date format but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema offers. Following the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 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?

The description 'Métrica: conversaciones por agente en un rango de fechas (YYYY-MM-DD)' clearly indicates the tool returns conversations per agent over a date range. It specifies the resource (agent conversations) and scope (date range). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_agent_performance_report, but the name and metric focus provide adequate distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or explain that it might return aggregated counts rather than individual conversations. Users must infer usage from the title and name alone.

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