Read analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: UTC day boundaries, the 92-day-per-call ceiling, and the default 30-day window — all relevant to how calls behave and fail.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the metric list and scope, then appends grouping and limits. The parenthetical channel examples are slightly long but earn their place by clarifying the enum. No filler.

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, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and enumerating the metrics largely does that. Aggregation/shape details (e.g., zero-fill for empty days, response envelope) are missing, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description fills the main gap by explaining the otherwise-undescribed 'group' enum (day, channel with example values, link, platform) and clarifying the 'or one link' scoping for the link param. It doesn't explain the from/to defaults beyond what the schema already states, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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 (analytics metrics: taps, app opens, installs, conversions, revenue) and scope (workspace or one link), plus the grouping dimensions. An agent can distinguish it from list_taps or record_event. It stops short of naming siblings like compare_analytics or get_top_links, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

It gives useful operating constraints (92-day cap, 30-day default) and notes parity with the dashboard, which implies when to trust the numbers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over compare_analytics, get_top_links, or list_taps, leaving the choice to inference.

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