tokportal_get_analytics_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the contents of the returned contract, giving the agent a clearer expectation of what the response will include beyond the mere fact it is read-only.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the return contents listed efficiently. Every word adds informational value, with no redundant phrases or 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 parameterless getter tool with good annotations, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It could potentially mention use cases or related tools, but given its simplicity and the absence of output schema, it is adequate. The brief listing of returned elements covers what an agent needs to know.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no requirement for parameter explanations, and the description correctly focuses on the return value. The schema coverage is trivially 100% since there are no properties to document.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the analytics data contract, listing specific contents (Analytics v2 contract, access payload, metric semantics, freshness targets, redaction rules). This differentiates it from sibling analytics tools like get_analytics_dashboard or get_analytics_account, which serve different purposes.

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 implies its use for obtaining the analytics contract but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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