get_analytics_summary

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

Annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns aggregated analytics metrics, but it doesn't specify whether results are scoped to a time range (though parameters imply this), what the granularity is, or any limitations (e.g., data retention). With annotations providing the core behavioral hints, a 3 is appropriate – some value is added by listing metric categories, but deeper behavioral context is absent.

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 that efficiently conveys the purpose and key metrics. No redundant or filler content is present. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 analytics tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a basic list of metrics but lacks details on return format, aggregation level, or time zone handling. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally explain the shape of the response (e.g., what fields are returned). It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100%, so both parameters (start_date and end_date) are fully documented in the schema, including ISO format examples. The description doesn't add any syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('inbox analytics') and enumerates what the metrics cover (message volume, response times, AI usage, conversion stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_usage, which focuses on usage metrics rather than inbox analytics. However, it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or clarify the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives like get_usage (which likely covers plan usage) or other analytics-related tools. No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer context from the name and description alone.

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