safe_mind_get_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious privacy behavior: groups falling below the anonymity threshold are never returned, which explains missing rows an agent would otherwise misread as an error. It omits permissions/authentication requirements and any guidance on the threshold value or response size.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core output description front-loaded and the suppression caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably steps in with 'overall and per category' to sketch the return shape, and it flags suppressed groups. It still leaves authentication requirements, pagination/size limits, and the concrete meaning of surveyId and the groupBy enum unaddressed, which matters for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 it only obliquely covers groupBy via 'optionally grouped'. Neither parameter is named or explained: the required surveyId is never mentioned, and the enum values (department, location, ageGroup, gender) are left entirely to the 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 names a specific resource (aggregated survey results) with a clear output shape ('overall and per category, optionally grouped'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling safe_mind_get_survey, so an agent can't tell from the text alone when to prefer one over the other.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'aggregated' suggests this is the reporting/rollup view rather than the raw survey fetch, and 'optionally grouped' hints at the groupBy parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. auth or survey ownership), and no reference to the competing get_survey sibling.

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