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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: a 90-day retention window, per-day granularity, and a top-10 link cap — details that shape what the agent can expect and request.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core payload (views/clicks, per day, top ten links) is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 present, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the per-day series and the top-ten link breakdown. Combined with the retention limit and the covering annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter is already documented with default 30, min 1, max 90. The description adds the rationale behind the ceiling ('noiz keeps 90 days of history'), which explains why 90 is a hard cap rather than an arbitrary one, and restates the day-window semantics.

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 exactly what is returned — per-day views and link clicks for the creator's page plus the ten most clicked links — which is a specific resource with a specific shape, not a restatement of the name. It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, all of which are write/mutation tools (add_link, archive_link, reorder_links, update_profile_text).

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?

Usage is implied by the read-oriented framing and by the fact that no sibling tool competes for this purpose, but the description never states when to reach for it or any prerequisite. It does supply one operational boundary (90 days of history is the maximum), which an agent can use as a limiting condition.

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