Show Media Analytics

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It adds the 2-year date range ceiling and detailed auth requirements (required permission scope, delegate_to_contact_permissions behavior), which are genuinely useful beyond the annotations. It does not describe return shape or pagination behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the lengthy auth boilerplate (permission scope code block, delegate_to_contact explanation, read-only note) adds bulk that could be a single line or delegated to auth documentation. Structure is functional but not tight.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: metric scope, date-range constraint, and auth requirements. Return-value shape is undefined, but given annotations and the aggregate focus, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the exclusive/inclusive date semantics. The description only reinforces the date range constraint (2 years) already implied by the schema; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (aggregate analytics for a video) with named metrics (plays, loads, engagement rate, play rate, conversions). This separates it clearly from siblings like get_media_stats, get_media_analytics_timeseries, and get_media_traffic_breakdown which cover different analytics surfaces.

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?

The description provides a constraint (date range must not exceed 2 years) but does not state when to use this tool versus the many adjacent analytics siblings (timeseries, traffic breakdown, engagement, account-level analytics). Usage is implied by the 'aggregate' framing but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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