Show Webinar Traffic Breakdown

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the required 'Read detailed stats' permission and the delegated-token authorization model, which an agent needs to know before calling.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the auth requirements separated afterward. The permission boilerplate is somewhat verbose but is genuinely actionable rather than filler.

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 endpoint with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description plus annotations give enough to call it correctly. It does not describe the shape of the breakdown results or any pagination/limit behavior, which would be the only remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 all five parameters (account, sort_by, group_by, webinar_id, sort_direction) are already documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description's list of grouping dimensions merely restates the group_by enum and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 and resource — 'Retrieve traffic breakdown analytics for a webinar' — plus the grouping dimension, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It distinguishes itself from the media analog (get_media_traffic_breakdown) implicitly via 'for a webinar,' but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 by the purpose but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_media_traffic_breakdown or get_webinar_analytics. The dimension examples hint at appropriate cases but do not frame selection between tools.

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