Show Webinar Registration Timeseries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (timestamped registration metric buckets covering impressions, registrations, completion rates) and the required token permission ('Read detailed stats' or delegated permissions), which is a meaningful auth constraint.

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 two-sentence purpose and return summary is front-loaded and tight. The appended auth/permission block is somewhat verbose (including the delegation scope text) but is genuinely relevant to invoking the tool, so it earns most of its space.

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 compensates by describing the return contents, and it covers the auth requirement. The missing piece is any guidance on choosing this tool over adjacent webinar analytics tools, but for correct invocation the definition is essentially complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents webinar_id, granularity, include_post_event, and the post-event date bounds including their inclusive/exclusive semantics. The description only echoes 'configurable granularity' and adds nothing the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (retrieve) and resource (registration timeseries for a webinar) with the configurable-granularity scope. It distinguishes itself from the many media/folder siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with close webinar-analytics siblings like get_webinar_analytics or get_webinar_histograms.

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 what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_webinar_analytics or get_webinar_audience. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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