chatwoot_get_live_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Returns' wording aligns with that. The description adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait but does not disclose any other operational nuances such as refresh behavior or limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 main sentence is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The Args block is slightly redundant because it repeats the parameter title without adding useful detail, but overall the description is compact and readable.

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 a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, this description is mostly sufficient. It lists the exact metric categories and notes real-time freshness, though it could be more complete by clarifying how this differs from grouped or historical metrics.

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 needed to add meaning for the output_format parameter. It only repeats 'output_format: Output format,' which adds nothing beyond the schema's existing title, enum, and default. The schema provides the real value here, not the description.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a concrete resource: real-time conversation counts for open, unattended, unassigned, and pending conversations. It is clear and not a tautology, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like chatwoot_get_live_grouped_metrics.

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 term 'real-time' implies the tool is appropriate when current conversation counts are needed, which is a mild usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, especially the similarly named live metrics sibling.

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