chatwoot_get_captain_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds period-to-period comparison and period scoping, which is useful, but does not explain what 'overview metrics' actually include or how the comparison is represented. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation and existing output 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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized into compact argument bullets. Each line is mostly informative; the only minor redundancy is the output_format bullet, which adds little over the schema's enum and default.

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?

The tool has read-only annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return formats. It covers the required assistant_id, the range semantics, and output format choice. The main remaining gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but for a simple read-only overview tool the definition is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for assistant_id by telling the agent to use chatwoot_list_captain_assistants, and for range by explaining it as an analysis period in days or months. However, output_format is only described as 'Output format,' which merely restates the schema title and adds no semantic value beyond the enum.

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 clear verb-resource pair: "Returns overview metrics for a Captain assistant with period-to-period comparison." This differentiates the tool from lower-level captain metrics by emphasizing the overview and comparison behavior, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it should not be confused with.

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 gives context on how to source assistant_id via chatwoot_list_captain_assistants and enumerates valid range periods. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as chatwoot_get_captain_metrics, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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