channel_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavior: 'Figures lag real time by roughly two to three days.' It also clarifies the date-range scoping and dimension behavior; the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'analytics/performance,' though not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded statements cover scope, dimension choices, and the staleness caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only analytics call with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: date format, dimension behavior, and data lag. The main gap is the undocumented metrics parameter and the absence of any return-shape hint, but these are minor for this level of complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains start_date/end_date format and the values of dimensions, but says nothing about the metrics parameter or how metrics should be formatted, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 description opens by identifying the resource and scope: 'Channel-wide performance over a date range.' It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but the parseable dimension options ('day' for time series, 'video' for per-video breakdown) make the tool's purpose and difference from video_analytics clear.

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?

It gives explicit within-tool routing: 'Pass dimensions="day" for a time series, or "video" for a per-video breakdown of the period.' It also provides the date format, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling video_analytics or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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