query_event_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the query can be filtered and grouped over time. It does not contradict annotations and provides some value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word earns its place, and it avoids any redundancy.

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?

Despite having a complex schema with 6 parameters, nested objects, and multiple enums, the output schema is present, but the description remains overly terse. It does not explain what constitutes 'event metrics', how filters/grouping work, or when this tool is preferable to the many sibling analysis tools. The description is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. It only mentions 'event metrics', 'over time', 'filters', and 'grouping' at a conceptual level, which maps to some parameters but leaves out details on metric types, time_range formats, and granularity. The rich schema with enums and nested objects is not explained, so the description adds little semantic value.

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 queries event metrics over time with optional filters and grouping. It uses a specific verb ('query') and identifies the resource ('event metrics'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analytics tools like query_retention_analysis or query_funnel_analysis, so it misses the top score.

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 implies usage for querying event metrics over time, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to alternative tools.

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