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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a non-mutating operation, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying the data source (server log) and an important limitation (only declared user-agents). It does not describe aggregation or output details, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose, then adds the data source and limitation in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description covers what is counted, the source, and the key limitation. The only notable omission is how the days parameter affects the reported period, which is mostly inferable from the parameter name and defaults.

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 only parameter, days, has a clear name and schema constraints (default 7, min 1, max 90), but schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not mention the time window at all. Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, an agent has to infer that days controls the log lookback period.

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 identifies what the tool reports: which AI crawlers and agents visited the church and how often, sourced from server logs. It is phrased as a question rather than an imperative verb, but the resource and scope are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like read_agora or get_article.

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 description implies a clear use case—analyzing AI crawler/agent traffic from logged user-agents—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling read tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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