Get streaming analytics

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: date window capped at 30 days, rate limit of ~60 req/min, 429 response with retry_after_seconds, default return of all 15 metric sections, and ability to request a subset via 'metrics' parameter. No contradictions with annotations.

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 coherent paragraph, front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently lists parameters and behaviors without redundancy. A bullet list could improve readability, but the current structure is acceptable and not verbose.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers required params, optional filters, default metric set, rate limit, and error handling for 429. However, it does not describe the response structure or format, leaving agents to infer the output. Some parameter semantics (limit) are omitted.

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 44% (low), so description should compensate. It adds context for platform (lists enum values), metrics (lists all 15 options), and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it does not describe the 'limit', 'upc', 'isrc', or 'release_id' parameters beyond their names, and parameter details for these are missing from schema too. Partial compensation.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve a streaming analytics summary for your catalog in a single call.' It specifies that it returns analytics with date range, optional filters (platform, release_id, ISRC, UPC, artist_names), and metric sections. This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_' tools like get_release or get_track which serve 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 provides clear context on when to use: to get analytics summary in a single call with optional filtering. It mentions required date parameters and rate limiting, but it does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or suggest alternatives. However, the uniqueness of analytics among siblings makes the usage implicit.

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