get_feedback_weighted_analytics

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the enterprise gating constraint and the 403 response on non-Enterprise plans, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions. A 4 is appropriate as the description enriches transparency but the annotations already cover most behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the critical usage distinction and gating info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), so return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, usage distinction, and access restrictions. It is complete for a read-only analytics tool with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations. Slight gap: it doesn't mention the read-only nature explicitly, but annotations cover that.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 29 parameters, including legacy/preferred pairs and formatting notes. The description itself does not add parameter-specific information; it only contextualizes the output as time-series data. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 retrieves weighted feedback-score time-series data. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_feedback_scores_analytics by noting it uses the weight recorded at creation for calibrated metrics. The verb 'Get' and resource 'feedback-weighted-analytics' are specific and unique among siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this for calibrated quality metrics; use get_feedback_scores_analytics for the raw unweighted distribution.' It also warns about an enterprise gating mechanism: 'Enterprise-gated. Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans.' This clearly communicates when to use and when not to use, with a named alternative.

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