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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: plan-dependent report availability and the explicit negative that visitor-level raw logs are not exposed. Doesn't cover pagination or output format, but read-only analytics needs little more.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then enumerates report types in a dense run-on sentence. All information is relevant but the middle sentence is packed and harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

Given 7 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope, report types, and access limitations. Missing details about response shape are acceptable since output schema is absent but not expected here.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches the report enum (describing each report's content) and explains interval semantics and region usage beyond the schema's terse descriptions, adding real value.

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+resource ('Aggregated click analytics') and clarifies the scope (account, one link, or one tag). Clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which are link CRUD/counting operations.

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?

Explains scoping (account, alias, or tag) and that report availability depends on plan, which is useful context for selecting the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. other analytics-adjacent queries, though no sibling overlaps directly.

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