Coda List Pack Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the valuable authorization constraint (pack-maker-only, own packs scope) and sketches the returned metric categories, going beyond what annotations convey, though it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering.

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 short sentences, no redundancy, with the core purpose front-loaded and the access restriction following. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description does take on the job of summarizing return content (install counts, doc usage, formula invocations) and states the permission boundary for a six-parameter, all-optional read tool. It is nearly complete, lacking only pagination/volume expectations that the cursor parameter implies.

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% -- limit, cursor, pack_ids, since_date, until_date, and is_published are all documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (analytics for Coda packs) and enumerates what the metrics cover: install counts, doc usage, and formula invocations. It is clearly a pack-scoped analytics reader, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like coda_list_pack_formula_analytics or coda_get_pack_analytics_summary, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 states a real precondition -- 'Only available to pack makers for their own packs' -- which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the aggregate (coda_get_pack_analytics_summary) or formula-level (coda_list_pack_formula_analytics) alternatives, so the when-to-use direction is only implied.

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