get_agent_time_response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a 'metric' (response time) over a date range, but does not elaborate on output specifics or other behavioral traits. It adds some value but not rich context.

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?

A single short sentence that clearly conveys the core purpose. No filler words. However, it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., a number, units) or provide example usage. It does not, leaving the agent without sufficient context for understanding the tool's output. The description is adequate only for the simplest scenario.

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 has 3 parameters, with descriptions for start_date and end_date (67% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; notably, agent_id lacks description, and the description does not clarify it. Minimal added value.

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 states it is a metric of agent response time over a date range, clearly identifying the resource and scope. While the verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'get'), it is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_agent_performance_report.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_time_in_conversation or get_agent_volume_of_work. The description offers no context for selection, making it harder for an agent to choose appropriately.

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