Summarise how the agent is doing in production

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does state 'Read-only' and lists the aggregate content returned, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, execution cost, or whether output format is structured versus narrative, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then moves to usage. Its first sentence is long because it enumerates many returned metrics, but every listed item is useful for understanding output scope, and the separate 'Read-only' and downstream-use sentences are efficient.

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?

For an eight-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return categories and the primary decision-making use case. It leaves some operational details to the schema, but no output schema exists and the description is still sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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 schema already documents all eight optional parameters, including their defaults. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (Aggregate) and resource (recent sessions) and enumerates the exact metrics produced: session endings, escalation rate, average turns, unmatched-topic counts, firing topics/tools, and questions from bad sessions. It also identifies a downstream sibling (cs_create_test_set_csv fromTranscripts), which helps distinguish its role, though it does not explicitly contrast with other transcript-related siblings like cs_list_transcripts or cs_get_transcript.

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?

It gives clear context for use: 'This is the input for deciding what to fix next, and for cs_create_test_set_csv fromTranscripts.' That tells an agent when the tool is relevant and what downstream workflow it feeds, but it stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives for raw transcript access.

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