Get Ticket Metrics

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the 'not reached yet' sentinel for in-flight durations and that tickets the caller cannot see are reported as such rather than failing the whole call. These are non-obvious response behaviors an agent cannot infer from annotations or the single-parameter 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then return contents, then routing and caveats. It is dense but slightly over-enumerated ('assignee-station and group-station counts') for a description whose schema and annotations already carry part of the load.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does thoroughly: reply/resolution/wait/on-hold times in calendar and business minutes, reopen and reply counts, and key timestamps. Combined with the failure-mode and sentinel notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 parameter already documents the 1-100 bound, duplicate handling, ordering and provenance. The description's 'up to 100 tickets in one call' merely restates the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the elapsed-time metrics ... of up to 100 tickets in one call') and enumerates the metric families returned. It explicitly separates itself from get_ticket, search_tickets and list_sla_alerts by framing this as elapsed-time facts versus live breach countdowns, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: 'for the live breach countdown use get_ticket, search_tickets or list_sla_alerts.' It also clarifies applicability even where no SLA policy exists, which is a real selection question for an agent deciding between SLA tools.

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