get_analyst_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only or if any permissions are required, nor does it mention any side effects or rate limits. The description only states what is returned.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes actionable guidance on filtering. Every sentence contributes value with no 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 and minimal annotations, the description adequately states the tool's return content and filter options. However, it lacks details on pagination, return format, or required access, leaving some gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 description mentions filtering by priority or status, which maps to two enum parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 retrieves insights and recommendations from the Analyst agent, listing specific types such as channel anomalies and incrementality signals. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_benchmarks, which focus on different data.

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 advises filtering by priority or status to focus on urgent items, providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though no direct competitor exists among siblings.

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