Show Account Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the required permission ('Read detailed stats'), the delegation-scope behavior for 'Act with a team member's permissions' tokens, and the 2-year range cap — meaningful operational context not present in the annotations.

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?

Purpose and metrics are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the range limit and auth requirements. The permission block is verbose, and the trailing 'Read-only account operation.' repeats what the readOnlyHint annotation already states, so a small amount of the text does not earn its place.

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 describing results, and it does list the metric categories returned. It stops short of explaining aggregation granularity, pagination, or breakdowns, but for a read-only aggregate analytics endpoint whose safety profile is fully annotated, the coverage is largely 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 account/start_date/end_date semantics are already documented (including inclusivity/exclusivity). The description adds a constraint the schema lacks — the 2-year maximum span between start_date and end_date — which meaningfully narrows valid parameter combinations.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve aggregate analytics for the entire account over a date range') and enumerates the metrics returned (plays, loads, engagement rate, play rate, conversions). It clearly signals account-wide scope, which helps separate it from media-scoped siblings, but it never names or contrasts with obvious alternatives like get_account_analytics_timeseries or get_account_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?

Usage is implied (call this for account-wide analytics over a date range) and one hard constraint is stated ('date range must not exceed 2 years'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and the many overlapping siblings (get_account_stats, get_account_stats_by_date, get_account_analytics_timeseries) are not addressed, forcing the agent to infer the distinction.

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