tokportal_get_account_analytics

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention performance, error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description's silence on behavior is a missed opportunity and leaves the agent without additional context.

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 extremely short (four words), but brevity here comes at the cost of informativeness. It front-loads the verb but omits critical detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence adds little value.

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 the tool's many siblings (over 70 tools including several analytics endpoints), the lack of output schema, and the opaque term 'compatibility view,' the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or how it differs from closely related tools like 'tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard.' The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Saved account ID.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, and the description neither improves nor worsens the semantic understanding.

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 states 'Get account analytics compatibility view,' which provides a verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'tokportal_get_analytics_account' by its focus on 'compatibility view.' However, the term 'compatibility view' is vague and not defined, leaving the exact purpose unclear. It is not a tautology but lacks sufficient specificity for a clear purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as 'tokportal_get_analytics_series' or 'tokportal_get_analytics_account.' There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and alternative analytics tools.

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