Web player analytics

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that results are per-episode listening metrics (listeners, seconds, average %, drop-off). It omits anything about the required date window, timezone handling, or how drop-off positions are reported, which are the real behavioural gaps for this call.

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 tight sentence with the resource and metric list front-loaded; nothing is padded. It could be marginally better structured by leading with the verb, but it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned metrics, and the schema fully covers inputs. Missing only the date-range semantics and any note that some metrics depend on duration_seconds being resolvable.

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%, so all six parameters (including show_id/episode_id sourcing hints and the duration_seconds fallback) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

Names the specific resource (web player listening analytics for a single episode) and enumerates the metrics returned. Scope 'for one episode' distinguishes it from portfolio-level siblings like get_overview_analytics and compare_episodes, though the verb is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_range_analytics, get_overview_analytics or compare_episodes. The single-episode scope hints at usage but no conditions, prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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