analytics__get_report

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHit already present, the description adds valuable multi-step context: walking the full request→report→instance→segment chain, downloading a gzipped TSV, and decoding rows. It also clarifies there is no side effect of starting a new request. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a richer mental model, though it omits details like error conditions or rate limits.

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 well-structured and efficiently written. It front-loads the main purpose, then immediately addresses the key alternative, and closes with a critical non-side-effect statement. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 multi-step nature, the description provides sufficient context: the chain traversal, the download/decode, the alternative listing mode, and the no-new-request constraint. The rich input schema and presence of an output schema cover parameter details and return shape, so the description completes the picture for reliable invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of which parameters matter ('app... and the report name or category') and clarifies that omitting 'report' triggers a list behavior, but these are already implied or stated in the schema. The additional value is marginal, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('App Store analytics report'), and the outcome ('returns decoded rows'). It distinguishes itself from the chained sibling tools by explaining the alternative approach and why this one is preferable, making its unique 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tools (analytics_report_requests, analytics_reports, analytics_report_instances, analytics_report_segments) and explains they end with a URL rather than data. It also adds a conditional usage ('Omit to list what this app has available instead of downloading one') and explicitly states a non-goal ('Does not start a new report request'), giving clear when-to-use and 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.