agent_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does deliver one genuinely valuable trait — a prompt-injection warning that returned content is untrusted third-party data and must not be followed. That is real added value. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, what the credential-store/identity claim implies behaviorally, and whether anything is mutated.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the middle sentence about identity/credential storage does not earn its place — it introduces confusion rather than clarifying the analytics purpose. The safety sentence is well-placed and terse.

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 described, and the untrusted-data warning is covered. What remains missing is the basic operational profile (read-only? per-agent scope? relationship to the credential store) that an annotation-free tool must supply itself.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'period' enum values and the 7d default. The description adds nothing about period semantics, 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?

The opening 'Your usage analytics' names a resource but supplies no verb and no scope (per-agent? per-period?), and the following sentence — 'Acts as the identity in the local credential store' — describes identity/credential functionality rather than analytics, so the agent is left unsure what the tool actually does. It is distinguishable from the many sibling analytics/incident tools only by the word 'analytics'.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the ~70 sibling tools (e.g., sentinel_accuracy, agent_relay_stats), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-like signal is the default period in the schema, which the description does not reinforce.

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