Read an analytics report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that period-based reports default to the last 30 days, or the last year for retention. This is valuable for correct invocation.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with 16 report variants. The opening sentence establishes the tool's purpose, the bulleted list is scannable and each line adds meaning, and the final sentence documents an important default behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the main context: what reports exist, what each contains, and the default time windows. It does not describe return shapes or which reports accept the limit parameter, but those are partially inferable from the report descriptions and schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what each report means, which clarifies the report enum, and by noting the default date windows for period-based reports. It does not add much for limit or publication, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('one of the publication-level reports behind the dashboard's Stats tabs'), and it enumerates all supported report names. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics tools like get_dashboard_summary or get_growth_sources, but the report list makes the scope concrete.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs any of the listed publication-level analytics reports. Each report entry includes a brief explanation of its content. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is explicit enough.

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