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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pagination, sort order, the trailing-window time scope, and the required 'read:analytics' permission, which signals this is a safe read operation. It does not detail response shape or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single compact block that front-loads the resource and scope, lists metrics efficiently, and ends with two short sentences on pagination and permissions. Every phrase earns its place; nothing is redundant or missing.

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 paginated analytics tool with no output schema, the description provides enough orientation: metrics, ordering, pagination, and permissions. It could be slightly stronger by stating the response container or pagination metadata, but an agent has sufficient information to call and interpret the tool.

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%, and the description only adds a small mapping by referencing the `days` window. Since the schema already documents days, limit, and offset with defaults and ranges, the description does not need to add much; baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Per-course analytics') and clearly states the scope ('for the community'), ordering ('newest course first'), and the exact metrics returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_analytics_summary without needing to inspect schemas.

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 conveys clear context: per-course analytics, a trailing window in days, pagination, and the required read:analytics permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but 'per-course' strongly implies when this tool is appropriate versus summary-level analytics.

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