Get evaluation metrics

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 fully covered and the trailing 'Read operation' is largely redundant. The description does add behavioral value by disclosing what is returned (aggregated grade and tag counts), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about aggregation granularity or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return semantics before the use case. The only waste is the trailing 'Read operation', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation without adding information.

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 read-only metrics tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (aggregated grade and tag counts) and the time-window scope. Gaps remain around bucketing granularity and response shape, but these are minor given the richness of the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so all three parameters (days, account, agent_id) are already documented in the schema, including the day range and the gumball/analytics aliases. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns 'aggregated grade and tag counts for an agent's evaluations over a time window'. The scope (one agent, time-bounded, aggregated counts) is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_organization_evaluation_metrics or list_evaluations, but 'agent's evaluations' implies the distinction.

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?

'Useful for dashboards and reporting on agent quality trends' gives an implied usage context, which is better than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over the organization-level metrics sibling or list_evaluations.

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