get_analytics_group_a2a

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the structured fields: it is Enterprise-gated and returns 403 on non-Enterprise plans, which is important pre-call context. It stops short of describing pagination limits or the exact response envelope, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: return shape first, routing guidance second, access constraint last. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns and when to prefer it) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 heavily-parameterized analytics tool, the description covers what matters: the resource, the routing decision against its closest sibling, and the Enterprise access constraint. An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be repeated, and the description still summarizes it usefully.

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% across all 33 parameters, so the schema fully documents the filters (configs vs config_slugs aliases, cost/token ranges, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (paginated per-agent A2A breakdown), and names the concrete return fields (total_groups, group_count, agents array with name + request count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_analytics_group_mcp, so an agent can identify it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('see which agents receive the most traffic') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('use get_analytics_group_mcp for MCP servers instead'). It also flags the Enterprise gating that governs whether the call is even valid.

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