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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: amounts are in CENTIMES, currencies are never converted and mixedCurrencies limits totals to one currency, and the response always echoes the attribution model used. It omits permissions/auth and any rate-limit or latency context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its metrics, then the currency and attribution caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the sequence of caveats makes it slightly run-on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does: metric list, attributed vs non-attributed revenue, placement breakdown, currency units and mixed-currency caveat. Auth/permission requirements are the only notable omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the unit of returned amounts (centimes) and that the chosen `model` is always reported back in the response, which affects how an agent interprets results.

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 resource (un espace) and enumerates exactly what it returns: clics, prospects, ventes, revenu attribué/non attribué, and placement-level detail. It is the only analytics tool among siblings (create_link, get_link, list_links, track_sale, etc.), so no sibling confusion is possible.

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?

Usage is implied (pull analytics for a space, choose a period/model), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative tool named. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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