tokportal_get_analytics_contract

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail by enumerating the returned data: 'Analytics v2 contract, current access payload, metric semantics, freshness targets, and redaction rules.' This goes beyond the annotations to describe the output structure, though it does not cover auth requirements or potential side effects (irrelevant here).

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 sentences: the first defines the action and resource, the second lists the return contents. Every word carries value, no repetition, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose. Perfectly concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description completely informs the agent of what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the return categories sufficiently, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. No additional information is needed.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. For a parameterless tool, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description focuses on the return value instead.

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 retrieves the analytics data contract, listing specific components (contract, access payload, metric semantics, freshness targets, redaction rules). The verb 'Get' and resource 'analytics contract' are unambiguous and differentiate it from sibling tools like tokportal_get_analytics_series or tokportal_get_analytics_account, which focus on different analytics aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools (e.g., when to use get_analytics_contract vs get_analytics_series). It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit selection criteria or alternative suggestions.

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