practice_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the 'up to 90 days' limit and the nature of the data returned (trends and source counts), but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like response formatting, pagination, or how timezone defaults work. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb 'Read' and the core resource. It is efficient and easily scannable, though it could have been slightly more structured to mention the optional filters.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already specified. However, the description does not explain what 'source counts' means or how the optional parameters (course_id, all_workspaces, timezone) affect the results. For a read-only analytics tool with multiple filters, this is minimally complete but lacks depth that would help an agent choose and invoke it confidently.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description echoes the 'up to 90 days' constraint for the days parameter but does not add meaning to timezone, course_id, or all_workspaces, nor does it explain how these filters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('practice trends and source counts') with a constraint ('up to 90 days'). It distinguishes itself from generic practice tools by focusing on analytics, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like practice_summary or practice_queue, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to practice_summary or practice_queue instead. The purpose is clear, but usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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