trmnl_get_author_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the payload shape: per-plugin installs/forks/health, totals, health-state share of live installs, and a 90-day growth series. It omits any note about pagination, permissions, or data freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the returned metrics listed compactly. The trailing "TRMNL GET /api/analytics." is mildly redundant but cheap and confirms it is a read endpoint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does so concretely across all the metric families. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the single optional `profile` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description makes no reference to profile selection or multi-profile behavior, adding nothing on top of the schema.

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+resource: "Read the analytics of the plugins you published," and enumerates what those analytics contain (installs, forks, health, totals, growth series). It is clearly distinct from data-mutation siblings, though it never names the closest read-oriented alternatives like trmnl_list_my_plugins or trmnl_get_search_insights.

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 phrase "plugins you published" implicitly scopes the tool to the author's own published recipes/plugins, which is useful selection guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to any sibling alternative, so an agent must infer fit.

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