analytics_sequences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves analytics (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids redundancy, though the Args section could be more informative. The front-loaded purpose is clear, making it easy to scan.

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 tool's moderate complexity (analytics retrieval), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it notes 'sequence_ids' is optional and for filtering, but the schema already shows it's optional with a default of null. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Get analytics for email sequences.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics for email sequences'), which is straightforward. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analytics_email_accounts' or 'sequence_get', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analytics_email_accounts' for account-level analytics or 'sequence_get' for non-analytics sequence details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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