Show Webinar Analytics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description adds real value by disclosing the required token permission ('Read detailed stats') and the delegated-permission alternative. It doesn't describe response shape, pagination, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core sentence and metric list are front-loaded and waste-free. The permission block is somewhat verbose but carries genuinely useful auth information, so it earns 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 usefully enumerates what the analytics payload contains and states the auth requirements. For a read-only aggregate tool with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; only return-format details are absent.

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% and each parameter (account, webinar_id, include_post_event, post_event dates) is documented in the schema, including the ISO date inclusivity/exclusivity semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('Retrieve aggregate analytics for a webinar') and enumerates the covered metrics (registrations, attendance, engagement, chat, poll results), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_webinar_registration_timeseries, get_webinar_audience, or get_webinar_histograms. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 explains authorization requirements but never says when to choose this aggregate endpoint over the neighboring webinar-analytics tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites for use. Usage is only implied by the metric list.

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