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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the return shape (period totals plus one row per item, ordered by most views), what each report type's rows contain, an explicit data limitation (offline viewing is not tracked so it is not counted), and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). This is rich behavioral context that annotations cannot carry.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the per-report column detail is compact. It is slightly dense with enumeration, but every sentence (output shape, limitation, auth) carries useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining totals and per-item rows for each report type, plus the offline-viewing caveat. It is nearly complete; only pagination/limit edge behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the report enum. The description reinforces the report choices and the 'most views first' ordering tied to limit, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: view/watch-time/completion analytics for videos, live_events, or collections over a period. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like uscreen_get_video or uscreen_list_videos without opening any schema.

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?

It frames the tool as the equivalent of 'the Content Analytics reports in Uscreen', which implies when it is used, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over other read tools or notes any prerequisites beyond the API key. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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