get_analytics_group_providers

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the Enterprise gating policy and 403 failure mode, plus the guarantee that 'requested metric fields are preserved in each provider row'—useful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, but 'Enterprise-gated' appears twice verbatim, wasting a sentence slot. The second sentence mixes use-case rationale with a behavioral note, which is functional but could have been tightened; the repetition drags the efficiency down.

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 a 35-parameter schema and an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core use case, enterprise restriction, and preserved fields. It doesn't mention that workspace_slug and time bounds are required, but the schema's required list already carries that burden, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%; every parameter already has a meaningful description with constraints and legacy/structured aliases. The main description adds no parameter-level detail, but at this coverage level 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get provider-grouped analytics for one workspace and time range with selectable metrics, ordering, pagination, and optional total count.' This precisely identifies what the tool does and contrasts with siblings like get_analytics_group_users and get_analytics_group_models via the 'provider-grouped' qualifier.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this when comparing provider traffic or reliability.' It also gives an exclusion constraint (Enterprise-gated, 403 on non-Enterprise plans). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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