get_request_analytics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing a real authorization constraint the annotations do not: 'Enterprise-gated' and 'Returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans.' It does not mention pagination or bucket granularity, which keeps it from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its output shape, then routing, then gating. The opening enumeration of summary.* field names is partly redundant with the output schema, which is a minor cost rather than a defect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still surfaces the Enterprise gating that an agent needs before calling. For a 31-parameter tool it is adequately complete, though it says nothing about time-bucket granularity or expected volume of results.

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 31 parameters, and the schema already documents the legacy-vs-structured alias pattern and formats. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; the field names it lists are return values, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (request-volume time-series data) and enumerates the shape of the result (summary totals plus per-bucket success/failed counts). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_error_analytics), so an agent can separate it from the many other get_*_analytics tools without opening a 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?

Gives both the positive trigger ('use this for traffic and reliability trends') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('use get_error_analytics when you only need error counts'). It additionally states the Enterprise gating precondition, leaving little to inference.

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