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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral rules: 30-minute session gap, device-vs-person attribution, and exclusion of visits not arriving via the folder link. This is real behavioral disclosure 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the caveats that govern interpretation. No filler, though the sentence fragments are terse to the point of being cryptic.

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?

No output schema and 0% schema coverage, so the description should define the return shape and parameter semantics. It instead spends its budget on sessionization rules, covering behavior but leaving the response shape and parameter meaning unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain days (1-90 window), folder_id (required scope key), or include_internal (whether internal viewers are counted), leaving all three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 (read) and resource (folder analytics: order, time spent, interactions) and distinguishes from get_session_timeline/get_engagement_summary by focusing on shared-folder page flow. Lacks explicit sibling naming but the scope is clear.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs get_engagement_summary, get_session_timeline, or list_sessions, and no mention of the required folder_id prerequisite. The description implies it is a folder-scoped read but gives no routing guidance.

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