analytics_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that figures are never averaged across differing definitions, that DEFINITIONS_DIFFER is flagged, and that combined figures appear only under identical definitions. Missing are auth/rate-limit/permission notes and default-scope behavior, so not quite a 5.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the normalization rule, with zero filler. The unexplained 'D0' prefix and dense clause stacking cost it a point.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description does well explaining result semantics (provenance, definition flags, non-averaging). However, it leaves the sole input parameter wholly undocumented and gives no guidance on default scope, which is a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it.

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?

There is one parameter (`platforms`, an untyped array) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all — no format, no accepted values, no default-when-absent semantics. The description therefore adds nothing to a completely bare schema field.

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 names the resource (unified analytics), its scope (per-platform figures normalized by metric key), and its operation (read-only report), which is clearly distinct from the sibling draft/syndication/receipt tools. It is specific but never uses a plain verb like 'returns' or 'generates', and the 'D0' label is unexplained jargon.

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?

'(read-only)' signals it is a safe read, which is useful context. But there is no statement of when an agent should call this versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens when the optional `platforms` filter is omitted.

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