Get My Activity Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the data is aggregated per day and the call fails when school-level course analytics are disabled, which the agent cannot learn from annotations. It stops short of describing the default time window or response shape.

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 compact sentences with the output content front-loaded, followed by the safety note and the failure condition. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 a single fully documented parameter, annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned conceptually and the main failure mode. The significant remaining gap is the observation window: there are no date parameters, and the description never says what period the per-day counts span, which an agent needs to interpret 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 coverage is 100% and the single course_id parameter already documents type, format ('numeric string such as "12345"') and how to obtain it via list_courses. The description only restates that the scope is 'a course', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 verb and resource ('Get your page views and participations in a course, counted per day'), which tells an agent exactly what data is produced and at what granularity. It is clear but does not name how it differs from close siblings such as get_my_page_views or get_my_assignment_analytics, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 usage context is implied — per-course activity analytics for the calling user — and one practical constraint is given ('returns an error if course analytics are disabled at your school'). However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like get_my_page_views or get_my_assignment_analytics is provided.

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