getProjectAnalytics

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's read-only ('METADATA ONLY'), never returns transcripts or PII, reads from prod-attested telemetry warehouse, and explains auth/ownership checks (403 errors) and setup (401 -> run login). No contradictions.

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 a single solid paragraph, dense but not overly long. Key information is front-loaded (what it does, what it returns). Could benefit from bullet points for readability, but still efficient.

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?

No output schema, but the description enumerates the return fields (window, totals, byEvent, etc.), explains data source and emptiness condition, covers error responses (403, 401) and prerequisites, and guides against misuse. Very complete.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the default and range for 'days' (clamped [1,365]), calling 'appPackage' a 'bundle id', and describing the return shape which the schema doesn't cover.

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 it reads production analytics for a project, specifying the verb 'Read', the resource 'project's PRODUCTION analytics', and the scope 'aggregate telemetry from ... shipped installs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getEventLog and getGatewayUsage.

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 tells when to use ('report a shipped app's real-world usage/adoption') and when NOT to use ('DON'T USE for gateway spend (use getGatewayUsage) or live dev events (use getEventLog)'), providing clear alternatives.

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