get_analytics_group_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add gating and response-shape context. It does that well by flagging the Enterprise requirement and the 403 failure mode on non-Enterprise Portkey plans, plus the precedence rules among scope selectors, though the 'Enterprise-gated' phrase is duplicated rather than expanding on what each scope returns.

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 scope-selection and when-to-use guidance is front-loaded and earns its place, but 'Enterprise-gated.' appears twice in a four-sentence description, a clear redundancy that wastes space. The 403 tail also repeats the same gating fact rather than adding new information.

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 39-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it aggregates, how scope is chosen, that metric columns carry into each row, and the Enterprise paywall. An agent can call it correctly without further reading, though the overlapping scope selectors could be spelled out a bit more sharply.

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 39 properties, and the schema already documents the scope precedence rules, legacy-versus-structured aliases, and all filter units. The description adds only a light summary ('selectable metrics, ordering, pagination, optional total count') plus the note that requested metric fields are preserved in each provider row, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource — 'Get provider-grouped analytics' — scoped to one workspace or organisation-wide over a time range. 'Provider-grouped' implicitly separates it from siblings like get_analytics_group_models, get_analytics_group_users, and get_analytics_group_metadata, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a concrete triggering condition ('Use this when comparing provider traffic or reliability') and lays out the three mutually exclusive scope selectors: workspace_slug, include_all_workspaces=true, or exclude_workspace_slugs. It stops short of naming the sibling group-by tools an agent should pick instead for user- or model-level breakdowns.

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