Coda List Doc Analytics

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 an authorization constraint ('Only available to doc owners') that annotations cannot express, which is genuine value; it stops short of noting rate limits or result-window caveats, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then capability, then the alternative. Efficient overall, but the metric list ('views, copies, likes, sessions') is partially repeated in the next sentence ('total views, unique views, copies'), a small redundancy that keeps it out of the top band.

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?

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, an existing output schema covering return values, and 100% schema coverage of parameters, the description only needs to supply scope, access rules and sibling routing — all of which it does. Nothing essential is missing, though pagination behavior across a potentially long result set is left entirely to the schema.

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% and all six parameters (limit, cursor, doc_ids, since_date, until_date, is_published) are documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to a 'specified date range' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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+resource (list analytics data for docs) and enumerates the returned metrics (views, copies, likes, sessions), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also explicitly differentiates itself from coda_get_doc_analytics_summary ('per-doc breakdown' vs 'aggregated totals'), so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the routing condition explicitly: use this for per-doc breakdowns, use coda_get_doc_analytics_summary for aggregated totals. It also states a real prerequisite ('Only available to doc owners'), which is the kind of when-can-you-use-this guidance an agent needs before calling.

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