Coda List Page 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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the required authorization level (doc owners only) and the returned metrics (views, unique views). It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, so not a 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the return value, then the access constraint and use case. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in full, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies critical context (owner-only auth, per-page metrics, use case) but omits any mention of pagination or time-range filtering behavior, which are present in the schema and may be relevant for correct invocation.

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 all five parameters including doc_id, limit, cursor, since_date, and until_date are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (page analytics within a doc), and clarifies that it returns per-page usage metrics rather than doc-level analytics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coda_list_doc_analytics and coda_get_doc_analytics_summary.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Only available to doc owners') and a use case ('Useful for understanding which pages get the most traffic'), giving context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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