chatwoot_get_team_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that; it does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, error behavior, or what the returned metrics represent.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact Args block. It contains no real filler, though two of the argument descriptions are low-value restatements.

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 metrics tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It is incomplete on the semantics of period and output_format and does not help the agent choose between the many performance/metric sibling tools.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. team_id gets useful guidance via chatwoot_list_teams, but period and output_format are only restated as 'Analysis period' and 'Output format', adding no meaning beyond the property names and enum values already 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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Returns performance metrics for a specific team.' It is unambiguous about the team scope, which separates it from agent, label, and inbox performance tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternative siblings.

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 actionable guidance: use chatwoot_list_teams to obtain the required team_id. It does not state when to prefer this over get_agent_performance or other performance variants, but the context for invoking it is clear.

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