get_analytics

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses automatic period comparison and filter behavior, which are useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or behavior with missing data. Still, it provides key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences only: the first front-loads the core purpose and comparison feature, the second clarifies return value and filter options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description partially prepares for the response by mentioning aggregate metrics and average_duration. However, it omits details on comparison output format (e.g., percentage change) and potential limitations. Adequate for a simple tool but not thorough.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds context by summarizing filters as segmentation options and specifying average_duration units. This adds marginal value over the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'aggregate analytics for a site', listing example metrics (visitors, page views, bounce rate) and highlighting the unique automatic comparison feature. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_timeseries or get_realtime by focusing on aggregate data with period-over-period comparison.

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 usage for overall site analytics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pages or get_traffic_sources. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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