get_performance_analytics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the PA plugin requirement and the widget-to-indicator resolution behavior, and the underlying API endpoint. It doesn't fully disclose return format or pagination behavior, but with the annotation coverage the bar is reasonably met.

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 compact at roughly two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every clause earns its place—plugin requirement, API endpoint, and the two input modes are all useful. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a read tool.

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?

Given the tool has no required parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description does a reasonable job. It explains the plugin prerequisite and the widget-resolving behavior which are non-obvious. Could add note about behavior when both/neither param is passed, and how results are returned, but it's fairly complete for a straightforward read tool.

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% with all 4 parameters well documented. The description adds the key relationship between widget_sys_id and indicator_sys_id (widget resolves to indicator), which adds value. However, it doesn't clarify expected output format or behavior when both parameters are provided or neither is provided, leaving some ambiguity at the baseline 3.

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 the tool reads Performance Analytics scorecard/indicator data via a specific API endpoint. It provides a distinct verb + resource (read PA data) that helps differentiate it from siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like get_pa_indicator, get_pa_dashboard, get_pa_time_series, which it overlaps with.

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 clear usage context: requiring the PA plugin, and explains the two input modes (pass indicator sys_id, or PA widget sys_id to resolve its indicator). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives like get_pa_indicator or get_pa_time_series, which would be the main gap.

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