ruddur_get_creator_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement of the analytics.read scope, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations and consistent with the read-only nature.

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: one specifying the action and one stating the required scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the analytics summary contains, but it does not. Additionally, the odd body parameter description for a GET operation creates potential confusion, and the description provides no clarification on how to invoke the 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 body and query both documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the body parameter's description mentions POST/PUT/PATCH operations, which is oddly generic for a GET tool, but the description does not clarify this.

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 'Get creator analytics summary' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_creator_billing and get_creator_profile. However, 'summary' is vague about what analytics data is included, so it stops 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 only guidance is the scope requirement 'Requires scope: analytics.read', which is a prerequisite but not about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or context for when this should be invoked.

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