Reports: Agent Conversation Metrics

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the required User API key auth header (api-access-token) and the note that text/IDs may arrive in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits and are passed through unchanged — behaviorally relevant for invocation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with endpoint and auth details following compactly. The Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is niche but short, and everything is stated without padding or repetition.

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?

Auth, endpoint, and the Digit/language quirk are covered, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main gap is that with no output schema, the description never indicates which conversation metrics are returned or their shape, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the result.

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 account_id, type, and user_id. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, format, or the 'type=agent' enum value beyond what the schema provides, so it lands at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 and resource ('Get conversation metrics for Agent') and anchors it with the endpoint path GET /reports/conversations/, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like gapify_account_conversation_metrics or gapify_get_account_reports_summary, leaving ambiguity about which report endpoint to pick.

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 '[Reports]' tag and 'Agent' scoping imply this is for agent-level reporting, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the several report-related siblings. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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