search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool shows (analytics metrics) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Show' but not explicit), authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For an analytics tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose and key metrics, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding value. It's efficient with zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters).

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 (analytics reporting), no annotations, 1 parameter with low schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and its use case, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, data scope) and parameter meaning. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall completeness is adequate with clear room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('days') with 0% schema description coverage (no description in schema). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema provides. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the 'days' parameter's role (e.g., time range for analytics). However, since there's only 1 parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but the lack of parameter semantics in the description limits its helpfulness.

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's purpose: 'Show search usage analytics' followed by specific metrics (total queries, top queries, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('search usage analytics'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'unified_search', which might also involve search functionality but serve different purposes.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use for understanding search patterns.' This gives context about when to use the tool (for analytics/insights into search behavior). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., how this differs from 'search_documents' or 'knowledge_stats'). The guidance is helpful but lacks specificity about tool selection.

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