dap_gov_wide_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it clarifies that data is aggregated government-wide and provides an example of parameter usage. It does not discuss response format or pagination, but with the annotation covering safety, this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes a helpful example and no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 5 parameters, an output schema absent, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the essential scope, provides an example, and lists report types. It does not describe the response structure, but for a read-only reporting tool with well-documented schema and clear purpose, completeness is solid. Missing explicit pagination behavior is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds an example (report='site', limit=50, after='2025-01-01') that illustrates parameter usage. It also summarizes report types, but the enum in the schema already lists all valid values. The description does not significantly deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Get a government-wide web analytics report from the Digital Analytics Program.' It explicitly notes it returns 'aggregate data across all federal government websites,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like dap_agency_report and dap_domain_report which focus on narrower scopes.

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 by emphasizing the government-wide, aggregate nature of the report, which implies when to use it over agency/domain reports. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for a single agency, use dap_agency_report'), so it misses the explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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