get_ticket_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds scope-gating (config_plus_audits or full) and cost comparison with audits, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core functionality and follow-up with usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 single-ticket metric reader with good annotations and schema, description covers scope, use case, and comparative cost. Slight gap: no mention of return format or pagination, but likely unnecessary for single record.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (id, instance). Description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it fetches the ticket_metric record for one ticket, listing specific data types (reply count, times, reopens, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling get_ticket_audits by contrasting purpose.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool for SLA/responsiveness questions and get_ticket_audits for 'why did this happen?', citing that audits have rule attribution and field-level changes while metrics are cheaper.

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