Get account analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Engagement summary over a window' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether data must be refreshed first, whether a default window applies, what metrics are included, or whether this call has any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not clarify the return shape, the role of windowDays, or how it differs from the many sibling analytics tools, which is a significant gap for a 2-parameter read endpoint.

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 for sparse parameter documentation. It loosely maps 'account' to accountId and 'window' to windowDays, but it does not explain the expected format of accountId, the unit of windowDays, or any default behavior.

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 identifies a specific resource ('an account') and outcome ('engagement summary over a window'), so an agent can tell it is an account-level analytics read. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from analytics siblings like get_analytics_summary or get_best_times, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools, nor any indication of when it should be preferred over get_post_analytics or get_analytics_summary. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the name and one-line description.

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