tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already communicate that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, but it does not contradict the annotations. The annotations carry the transparency burden, so a score of 3 is appropriate for not providing additional context beyond the structured data.

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 (three words), which could be concise if it were informative, but here it is under-specified. The required information for an analytics dashboard tool is missing, making it insufficient rather than efficiently brief.

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 has 6 parameters (including filters for account, country, platform, workspace, and a date range), no output schema, and a complex ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what the dashboard returns, how filters combine, or what aggregation or time period is implied. Significant gaps remain.

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 the input schema thoroughly documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters. Per the rules, this justifies a baseline of 3.

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 'Get analytics dashboard' identifies a specific resource (analytics dashboard) but does not clarify what this dashboard contains or how it differs from sibling analytics tools like 'tokportal_get_analytics_series' or 'tokportal_get_analytics_account'. The verb 'Get' is generic, and without context on the dashboard's scope (e.g., aggregated metrics, charts), the purpose is vague and poorly differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative analytics or dashboard-related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description offers zero usage direction.

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