Coda Get Doc Analytics Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the returned metrics (views, unique viewers, copies) and discloses the aggregation scope ('summed across all accessible docs'). It doesn't cover date-window defaults or whether untitled/inaccessible docs are excluded, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage and the output schema.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the metrics and the routing rule. Information is front-loaded with the routing constraint last, which is the right ordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key metrics. With annotations, a schema, and a clear sibling distinction, an agent has what it needs; only the treatment of the date-range defaults and the meaning of 'accessible' remain unstated.

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 since_date, until_date, and is_published are already documented in the schema with ISO 8601 and boolean semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g., default all-time window), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('aggregated analytics summary across all docs'), and the aggregation scope ('summed across all accessible docs'). It also explicitly names the sibling coda_list_doc_analytics as the per-doc alternative, so an agent can distinguish the two from description text alone.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use this tool ('for a high-level overview') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('use coda_list_doc_analytics for per-doc breakdown'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative routing an agent needs.

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