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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[read]' tag merely restates that. What it does add is the underlying API endpoint, useful for agents reasoning about identical data shapes. It omits the time window implied by 'daily event counts' (there is no date parameter), pagination behavior, and result size, which matter for a report tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the read marker and the core purpose, followed by the data granularity and API mapping. No filler; slightly dense with the endpoint parenthetical, but everything present is relevant.

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?

There is no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and no statement of the date range over which 'daily event counts' are returned. For a read-only analytics report the description covers the shape of the result loosely but leaves an agent unable to predict the response format or how to vary the analytic type.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter `seliee_analytic_type`. The description only restates the schema default ('defaults to VIEW') and never explains what the parameter controls or what other values are legal (no enum exists). That is the one place the description needed to compensate for the schema, and it does not.

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 ('Website analytics overview ... daily event counts per website') and scopes it to every website of the merchant, which distinguishes it from get_website (single-site detail). It does not explicitly name or rule out the many sibling report tools (get_articles_report, get_bot_report, ads_insights_websites), so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for every website of the merchant' and the API mapping to GET /api/reports/analytics/list/websites, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no mention of the sibling get_website or list_websites alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer the choice from the scope wording alone.

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