Get content analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful behavior: per-content grouping, specific metrics included, and descending sort by view count. However, it does not mention the time period covered, pagination behavior, response format, or whether results are limited in any way.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key metrics are front-loaded, scope is clearly stated, and the sort behavior is specified in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter analytics read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and sort order, and identifies the content categories included. It is missing a temporal scope clarification (all-time vs. recent window), but overall it gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than input semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs for a no-argument tool.

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 names a specific resource ('per-content-item') and the exact metrics returned: view counts, average time on page, average scroll depth, and last-viewed timestamp. It also states scope (blog posts, case studies, resources) and sort order, which distinguishes it well from sibling analytics tools.

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 tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it for per-content engagement metrics. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., get_daily_views, get_content_insights, get_analytics_detail) might be better suited for other analytics needs.

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