get_agent_transferred

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a metric about transferred conversations, which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., how pagination works, if any, or what the response format is) are disclosed. Given the annotations, the description is adequate but not exemplary.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is appropriately succinct with no redundant information. However, it is slightly too brief, missing an opportunity to add valuable usage context.

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 simplicity (three parameters, no output schema, readOnlyHint), the description covers the basic purpose but remains incomplete. It does not specify the return type (e.g., count, percentage, list) or interpretation of 'transferred conversations'. For a metric tool, 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level information; it does not explain agent_id, which is missing a schema description, nor does it elaborate on the date format beyond what is already in the schema. The tool would benefit from describing that agent_id refers to the agent's unique identifier.

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 that the tool provides a metric about transferred conversations for an agent within a date range. It uses specific language ('Métrica de un agente: conversaciones transferidas') and the resource is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_agent_conversations or get_agent_volume_of_work, which might also relate to agent conversations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection among the many similar agent metric tools.

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