get_time_to_fix_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a sample size and threshold flag, and explains that the threshold allows callers to hide the metric when the dataset is too small (<5 resolved pins). This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, but the second sentence is somewhat promotional ('This is the marketing proof point...') and does not add functional information. While not verbose, it could be more concise by removing the marketing fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value structure. It mentions 'sample size and threshold flag' but does not provide details on the exact format or names of fields. For a metrics tool, this leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the scope parameter in more detail: 'global' is used for the landing widget for aggregate proof, and projectId is required when scope='project'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool computes median and p25/p75 time-to-fix from resolved pins, and returns sample size and a threshold flag. This is a specific verb+resource combination with no sibling tools performing a similar function, so it is well-differentiated.

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 implies the tool is used for marketing proof points and distinguishes Pincushion. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but given the uniqueness of the tool and no similar sibling tools, the usage context is clear enough.

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