get_performance_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the PA plugin prerequisite, the GET endpoint (implying read-only), and the behavior that a widget sys_id is resolved to its indicator. These details go beyond the structured annotations, though they don't describe response format or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the endpoint and input details. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, input methods, endpoint, and plugin requirement. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format, pagination, or what happens if both indicator_sys_id and widget_sys_id are provided. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only analytics tool, but leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the main semantic weight. The description adds the useful clarification that indicator_sys_id and widget_sys_id are alternative input paths, but this is partially redundant with the widget_sys_id parameter description that already notes auto-resolution. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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, uses a specific verb ('Read'), and identifies the resource. It also names the underlying REST endpoint, which helps distinguish it from other PA-related tools, and clarifies the two input paths (indicator or widget sys_id). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context for use (requires PA plugin) and explains how to pass parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like get_pa_scorecard or get_pa_indicator. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so the usage guidance is partial.

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