Get My Communication Analytics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond those annotations: it reports an error condition when course analytics are disabled at the institution. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but the added prerequisite failure mode is valuable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: the return content, the read-only nature, and the school-configuration error condition.

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 simple one-parameter read-only analytics tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the data returned and a key failure condition. It could say more about the shape of the daily counts or timeframe, but no critical information is missing.

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?

The single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its format and source via list_courses. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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: retrieve daily message counts exchanged with the instructor in a given course. The scope is clear enough to separate it from generic activity analytics or communication-channel tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

Use is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as get_communication_channels, get_my_activity_analytics, or list_conversations. An agent can infer the intended case but has no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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