Retrieve analytics for a partner

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does add one real behavioral fact — that the response shape varies with groupBy — but says nothing about what that variation looks like, pagination, aggregation behavior, or the error thrown when neither partner_id nor tenant_id is given.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction for the ungrammatical "The response type vary" and for spending the second sentence on a point that is not developed.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and an explicitly variable response shape, the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants — it never explains what top_links, timeseries, or count actually return, and omits the partner_id/tenant_id requirement. The schema covers the inputs well, so this is adequate but with a clear gap on output expectations.

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 schema already explains every parameter including defaults, enums, precedence rules, and the tenant_id/partner_id error condition. The description's only parameter-adjacent remark (response varies by groupBy) restates what the schema's enum implies. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve analytics for a partner within a program") and hints at the groupBy-driven output variation. It is clearly distinct from link/customer/commission siblings, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from the similarly named get_link_stats.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (tenant_id or partner_id must be supplied), and no comparison to alternatives such as get_link_stats or list_events. The agent must infer context entirely from the schema and sibling names.

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