Get Analytics

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds minimal context about campaign/workspace scope, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as aggregation windows or whether results are cached.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and scope efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 the readOnly annotation, full schema documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could have explicitly noted that omitting campaign_id returns workspace-level analytics, but that detail is already in the parameter schema and is not essential in the main description.

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 100%: the only parameter (campaign_id) is documented with its default and behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('analytics data'), and a scope ('a campaign or the entire workspace'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_campaign_status, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other tools.

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 when to use the tool: for analytics data at campaign or workspace level. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_campaign_status for status checks, leaving the usage guidance mostly implicit.

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