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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by defining how the ranking is computed (the first signature click that drove the first visit) and sketching the return shape, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing inline return-shape sketch is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 analytics tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, metric definition, and dimension adequately; nothing about return values needs restating. What is missing is the time window the ranking spans, which is meaningful context an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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 100%, so page, limit, context, and the group_by enum are already documented in the schema. The description restates the group_by dimension as 'first-touch dimension' but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond that.

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 plus resource: ranks acquisition of identified visitors by signature template or teammate. The parenthetical defines 'first-touch' so the agent can distinguish this from click/view analytics siblings such as get_analytics_clicks and get_analytics_views.

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 by the analytics framing and the definition of the first-touch metric, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named. An agent must infer that this is the attribution-ranking tool rather than being told.

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