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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as date-range scoping, required metrics, grouping behavior, or response characteristics.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves no room for structural elements like usage conditions or parameter hints.

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 tool with three parameters, nested objects, enums, and many competing analytics siblings, the description is too sparse. While annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description omits when to use this tool versus alternatives and provides no parameter usage context.

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 67%, and the schema itself documents the metrics, group_by, and date_range fields including enum values and date formats. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the structured schema carries most of the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get usage analytics for your live streams.' It clearly identifies the domain (live streams) but does not differentiate this tool from the many other analytics siblings such as analytics_aggregated_data, asset_analytics, or retrieve_analytics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the numerous other analytics tools in the sibling list, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and resource.

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