Analytics for a date range

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still earns credit by describing the return payload (time series plus named breakdowns) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention cost/latency for a potentially heavy multi-breakdown query or any auth requirements, 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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with scope and then the payload, with no redundant or filler text.

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 9-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the return shape, but it omits any routing guidance against the many overlapping analytics siblings and says nothing about the cost of requesting all breakdowns plus per-item time series. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so interval, timezone, breakdowns, episode_id, country_code, and breakdown_time_series are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what those field descriptions already say; 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?

States a specific resource (show or episode analytics in a date range) and enumerates the returned dimensions: downloads time series plus country, app/browser, OS, device, episode and private-subscriber breakdowns. That clearly distinguishes it from narrow siblings like get_total_downloads or get_monthly_downloads, though it does not name any sibling 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?

There are ten sibling tools, several of which return overlapping download analytics (get_overview_analytics, get_total_downloads, get_monthly_downloads, get_average_downloads, compare_episodes), yet the description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that 'detailed' means the heavier, richer tool.

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