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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about rate limits, the 60-day window cap, pagination behavior, or result shape — it only restates that analytics data is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It is efficient, though the size is arguably too lean for a six-parameter analytics endpoint.

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 nested-object, six-parameter analytics tool sitting among a dozen similar analytics siblings, the description omits the metric-to-parameter relationship, the 60-day date-range cap, and any disambiguation from siblings. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the identification and routing gaps leave the definition under-complete.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents filters, metrics, group_by, date_range, and the two top_assets pagination params. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond naming two example metrics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('gives usage analytics data of your videos') with two example metrics, so the basic purpose is legible. However, the sibling list contains many near-identical analytics tools (asset_analytics, analytics_aggregated_data, insights_aggregated_data, live_usage_analytics, retrieve_image_analytics, top_assets), and nothing in the description distinguishes this one from them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. In a namespace crowded with analytics endpoints, the absence of routing guidance ('use X for aggregated, Y for breakdown') forces the agent to guess from the name alone.

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