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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context that the tool returns specific analytics (members, country, revenue) and includes restrictions on free businesses. It does not mention any side effects beyond data retrieval, which is consistent with the 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?

The description is efficiently structured: purpose first, then usage constraints. It is not overly verbose, though the clarification that 'business and community are interchangeable' could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and failure scenarios. It does not describe the output format, but the nature of 'analytics' implies a data structure. The instructions to check access before proceeding are critical and well-included.

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?

The only parameter, communityId, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on it either. While the parameter's purpose is somewhat inferable from the tool name, the description should ideally define it. Given the low parameter count, the missing description is a minor gap.

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 clearly states it retrieves member, country, and revenue analytics for a community. It also clarifies that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable, resolving the naming mismatch between the tool name and title. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_community_analytics_graph or get_community_analytics_v2.

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?

The description provides explicit instructions: check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. It also states that FREE businesses cannot use this tool. This is comprehensive guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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