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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('Reading analytics'), API key requirement, and return structure (summary vs premium extras, include parameter). It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: first sets the action, second details default returns, third covers premium and special parameter. Every sentence is essential, no redundancy, and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and simple parameter set, the description covers purpose, parameters, return values, authentication, and tiered functionality. It does not mention error cases or id/slug mutual exclusivity, but overall it's sufficient for correct 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%, baseline 3. The description adds beyond schema by explaining premium plan enrichments, how 'include' adds recent visit rows, and the context for id/slug alternatives. This adds meaningful practical guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reading analytics for a single Doc Link by id or slug. It specifies the return values (summary always, premium extras) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on analytics rather than creation, extraction, or listing.

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 context: for a specific Doc Link using id or slug, and requires an API key. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools list and the 'by id or slug' phrasing provide implicit guidance.

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