api_nfd_get_nfd_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get analytics data') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the analytics data returns. For a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly brief given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations), which leans toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'analytics data' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor given the tool's 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 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities through 'analytics data for NFDs.' This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 'Get analytics data for NFDs' states the basic action (get) and resource (NFD analytics), but it's vague about what 'analytics data' specifically entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling NFD tools like api_nfd_get_nfd_activity, which suggests some overlap in purpose without clear differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other NFD tools like api_nfd_browse_nfds and api_nfd_search_nfds), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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