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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, without mentioning whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, it fails to confirm it has no side effects.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a list of included metrics. Every part is informative with zero fluff.

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?

The description lists key metrics but does not specify the output structure (e.g., whether it returns an object with fields like totalEnrollments and an array of step stats). Since there is no output schema, more detail on the return format would make it complete. Still, it provides enough for basic usage.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (apiKey and automationId are straightforward). Baseline score 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'aggregate analytics for an automation', listing concrete metrics (total enrollments, completed, exited, open/click rates). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_automation' (which returns automation details) and 'list_automation_enrollments' (which lists individual enrollments).

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 implies usage for obtaining aggregate analytics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., 'list_automation_enrollments' for individual enrollments) or any conditions under which it should not be used. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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