get_analytics_by_dimension

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful facts—default time_period of '28d', optional date overrides, max_results row cap, and a ranked-list return shape—but it does not state read-only behavior, handling of conflicting time_period plus start/end dates, or data availability caveats.

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?

One-sentence purpose, then an Args list that gives each parameter purpose and allowed values, then a Returns line. No filler; the long dimension enum is justified because it is the key selection info.

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 description covers all five parameters and the broad return shape, and an output schema exists to detail metric fields. It is missing only a pointer to when this tool is preferred over sibling analytics tools and any interaction rules between time_period and explicit dates, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by enumerating supported dimension values (trafficSource, deviceType, country, ageGroup, gender, operatingSystem, day/month), time_period presets, date format, and max_results semantics. This goes far beyond bare parameter names.

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 first sentence names the action ('Fetches'), the resource ('channel analytics'), and the differentiator ('broken down by a specific dimension'), and the supported dimension list clarifies scope. This separates it from sibling get_channel_analytics, which presumably returns rollups rather than per-dimension breakdowns.

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 when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or sibling comparison appears; the intended use is only implied by the phrase 'broken down by a specific dimension.' It would be stronger if it told the agent to choose this tool over get_channel_analytics when dimensional grouping is needed.

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