Get the dashboard summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what metrics the call returns and that it covers a time window, which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not fully describe output shape or exact activity details, but for a read-only summary this is reasonable.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important usage signal is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: first defines the payload, second gives the human-friendly use case.

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?

The description lists the key return metrics and gives a clear use case, which is largely complete for a no-output-schema tool. However, 'recent activity' is vague and the description does not clarify whether ARR or subscriber counts are absolute values, deltas, or citations. Slightly more detail would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 range_days and publication are already well documented. The description adds only indirect context about a 'window' and the publishing dashboard, but does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource ('publishing dashboard') and enumerates the exact headline metrics: subscribers at start/end of window, paid subscribers, ARR, and recent activity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the go-to summary call for newsletter health.

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 phrase 'The best single call for how is my newsletter doing' gives a strong usage context and implies this is the overview choice. It does not explicitly name alternative analytics tools or say when to prefer them, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it for summary-level questions.

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