chatwoot_get_captain_resolution_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-series context and range semantics, but no deeper behavioral detail such as how the trend is computed or whether this_month/last_month depend on the current calendar date. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tool's purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args block is compact with no filler phrases. The only minor waste is the nearly tautological 'output_format: Output format.' line, but overall the size is appropriately small for a three-parameter read-only tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly avoids explaining return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately; the remaining gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing this from the other captain analytics siblings, which the name itself mostly resolves.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters. assistant_id gets a useful cross-tool pointer, and range is explained with its enum values; only output_format is weakly described as 'Output format', but its markdown/json enum is visible in the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('resolution rate trend'), and scope ('for a Captain assistant over time'). This distinguishes it from closely named siblings like chatwoot_get_captain_resolution_flow and chatwoot_get_captain_metrics without needing to open any schema.

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 only routing guidance is the cross-tool hint 'use chatwoot_list_captain_assistants' for obtaining assistant_id, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over the many other captain analytics siblings (overview, metrics, resolution_flow, faq_stats); the usage context is implied by 'trend over time' rather than stated.

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