Get raw analytics detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated, returns raw events rather than aggregated summaries, and lists the detail fields. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a straightforward read-only retrieval tool the behavioral picture is reasonably complete.

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?

Two tight sentences carry the key information up front: what is returned, the detail level, and the intended use. No filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the return fields and purpose well. It omits the default time/date window (no date filter exists in the schema) and response ordering, which an agent may need to correctly interpret paginated raw analytics data. Still, it is enough to select and invoke the tool for basic drill-down.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. The word "Paginated" usefully contextualizes limit/offset, but the description does not explain exact pagination semantics (e.g., whether offset is zero-based or page-based) or the data window being paged. The schema's defaults and bounds provide the rest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Paginated raw page-view events" and enumerates the returned fields (session, device, browser, os, etc.). It clearly differentiates itself from summary analytics siblings by emphasizing raw event-level detail.

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?

It explicitly says "Use for drill-down investigation" and "prefer the summary tools for regular reporting," giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it refers to "summary tools" by category rather than naming the specific sibling tools, leaving a little room for ambiguity.

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