Get analytics summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Beyond this, the description adds important context: requires an API key, revenue is in cents with a formatted USD convenience field, and zero views is a real answer not an error. These go well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 organized into three short paragraphs with each sentence earning its place: purpose, usage, then caveats. It is front-loaded with the main function and avoids redundancy, even while covering edge cases like units and zero views.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: page views, gross/net revenue in cents, a formatted USD field, and active subscriber count. It also covers prerequisites (API key) and edge-case semantics (zero views). For a one-parameter read-only tool, this is complete.

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% for the only parameter (days), which already specifies the trailing window, range, default, and usage examples. The description mentions the trailing window but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarise the account's performance over a trailing window: page views, gross and net revenue, and active subscriber count.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting these are whole-account totals and cannot be broken down per article, contrasting with tools like get_article or search_articles.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use it for 'how did I do this month' style questions.' It also states exclusions: cannot break results down per article and only covers a trailing window ending today rather than an arbitrary date range, ruling out alternatives.

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