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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the API is not live and that the tool 'Returns structured feature_not_available', which is a clear behavioral trait beyond the schema. This is honest and useful, though it does not address permissions or other nuances—acceptable for a placeholder.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Analytics read') followed by the key limitation. It is efficient with no filler, though it could optionally mention that the parameter is the link ID. Overall, the structure is effective for a tool that is not yet functional.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values beyond the explicit 'Returns structured feature_not_available'. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the current state and avoid misuse. The description is complete for the tool's current placeholder status.

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?

The description does not add any meaning to the single 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (string, min/max length). The parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool name (link analytics), but the description itself offers no clarification. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Analytics read') and implies it is distinct from sibling tools like get_link and get_links. It clearly signals that this tool is for analytics rather than link retrieval, but it does not detail what analytics are returned (since it is not live), which keeps it from a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'API not live yet', which effectively tells the agent not to use it, but it does not suggest an alternative or explain the intended use case. This is minimal usage guidance at best.

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