Show Media Analytics Timeseries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints: the 2-year maximum date range and the required API token permission ('Read detailed stats') including delegation scope details. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or other operational traits beyond what is already in annotations and schema. With annotations covering basics, this added context earns a 3.

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 front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, followed by return format and a key constraint. The second paragraph on permissions is somewhat verbose but necessary for authorization context. Overall efficient with little waste, though could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 4 required), rich schema with 100% coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, return format, a critical constraint, and authorization. It lacks guidance on alternative tools, which would improve completeness for an agent selecting among many siblings.

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 parameters in detail (including date inclusivity/exclusivity and granularity enum). The description adds the 2-year range constraint, which is a valuable semantic detail not present in the schema. However, it still relies on the schema for most parameter meaning, warranting the baseline 3.

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 the verb (retrieve), resource (analytics timeseries data for a video), and scope (over a date range with configurable granularity), and mentions the return format ('array of timestamped metric buckets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_media_analytics (which likely returns aggregated analytics) and get_account_analytics_timeseries by specifying 'for a video'. However, without explicit naming of the sibling alternative, 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_media_analytics, get_account_analytics_timeseries, or get_media_stats. It only implies usage by describing the output. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are given.

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