get_analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the Pro-feature gating behavior (free accounts get gated:true with totals only) and the required analytics:read scope, which an agent needs to anticipate failures and degraded responses.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents, then the gating caveat, then the scope requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; no waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the metrics. It also covers the gating edge case and auth scope. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or response shape, but for this read tool the coverage is solid.

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 both parameters (id and rangeDays) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Who watched a recording and how far') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (opens, unique viewers, plays, completion, retention, viewers by name, breakdowns). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recording, get_summary, or get_transcript.

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 implies the use case (viewing audience analytics for a recording) but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-when-not guidance relative to the many sibling getters. The 'Needs analytics:read' line is a prerequisite rather than routing guidance.

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