coda_get_doc_analytics_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that it returns 'total views, unique viewers, copies, and other metrics summed across all accessible docs.' This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations. It could mention that results depend on the user's access, but it is overall clear.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the action and result, and the second provides usage guidance with an alternative. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 that the tool has an output schema (likely detailing the returned metrics) and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is reasonably complete. It mentions the aggregated metrics and distinguishes from per-doc analytics. It could be more explicit that it aggregates over 'all accessible docs,' but that is implied. Overall sufficient.

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?

All three parameters (is_published, since_date, until_date) have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any further semantics for these parameters; it only mentions the aggregated metrics returned. Since the schema already documents the parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get aggregated analytics summary across all docs.' It specifies the resource (analytics summary) and scope (all docs). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool coda_list_doc_analytics, which is listed in the siblings. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource makes it unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for a high-level overview — use coda_list_doc_analytics for per-doc breakdown.' It tells when to use this tool and when to use an alternative. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or cases where this tool should not be used, but the alternative is clearly stated.

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