analytics_trend_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions comparing periods to surface gainers and decliners, which hints at a read-only analysis function, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool overview, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (6 parameters, analytics domain), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which mitigates need to explain returns), the description doesn't cover parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what site_url, property_id, start_date, end_date, top_n, or max_rows mean or how they interact (e.g., if site_url and property_id are alternatives). With 6 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context beyond the bare 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 states the tool compares current vs previous periods to identify gainers and decliners, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what exactly is being compared (e.g., metrics, pages, queries) and doesn't clearly distinguish this trend analysis tool from siblings like analytics_popularity_snapshot or analytics_query_page_opportunities that might also involve comparative analysis.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for trend analysis, but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for performance monitoring, identifying outliers) or prerequisites. With siblings like analytics_data_quality_report and analytics_generate_action_items, there's no help in choosing between them.

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