get_analytics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the metrics returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or how it handles date defaults (which are in the schema). The 'get' verb implies read-only but that is not explicit.

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 two sentences: a clear statement of function and a useful natural-language example. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the key output metrics. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists, and the metrics are listed. The omission of date-range handling is minor since the schema documents it.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including default behaviors for date ranges. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 'Get traffic analytics for a website' and lists specific metrics (requests, bandwidth, cache hit ratio), making the verb and resource clear. It distinguishes from siblings because no other tool offers analytics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 example 'Show analytics for my website' implies when to use the tool with natural language, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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