support_get_average_response_time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the metric is a first-response average, measured in seconds, over a fixed trailing 7-day window. It stops short of defining whether 'average' is mean or median, or how empty periods are reported.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the metric, unit, and window, followed by the endpoint path. Nothing is redundant or padded, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 no-parameter, read-only metric tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: what is measured, in what unit, and over what period. Remaining ambiguity (averaging method, empty-data behavior) is minor for a single-value aggregation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly signals the absence of a date-range parameter by hard-coding the 7-day window, which prevents the agent from hunting for an input that does not exist.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('average support first response time'), and quantifies both the unit (sec) and the window (last 7 days). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling list/message/ticket-count tools without opening 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 fixed 7-day window is stated, which implicitly tells the agent this is not parameterizable by date range, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative for other time ranges or metrics. Usage is inferable from the name and description rather than directed.

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