tokportal_create_analytics_report

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explicitly stating the operation is not idempotent (header rejection), that the response contains a secret not stored in the ledger, and that the request is sensitive. Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds critical detail about behavior (secret handling, ledger exclusion). No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, return value, critical usage note, and error condition. No superfluous information. Front-loaded with purpose. Succinct and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately mentions return type (token and URL) and notes the secret is not stored. It also covers an important error case. However, it does not specify behavior when required fields are missing or describe the role of each input field. Since the schema covers parameter names and types, the description is fairly complete for a creation tool.

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% (body described as 'JSON request body'), but individual parameter descriptions are absent. Property names (to, from, query, title, etc.) are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates an analytics web report, specifying it is shareable, returns a token and URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_export_analytics_report_html (which exports an existing report) and tokportal_get_analytics_series (which retrieves series data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like tokportal_create_video_ad_code_request.

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 a key usage constraint: 'Do not send Idempotency-Key' with explanation of the error response. This is helpful but does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a shareable URL is needed vs. an export. The guidance is narrow and lacks context for choosing among sibling tools.

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