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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-open-world operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the human-vs-bot separation model, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about default timeframes, pagination, or result size beyond what the schema's limit note carries.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. The dashed fragment structure is terse but readable.

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?

A six-parameter report tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema leaves real gaps: no default date range, no explanation of how days interacts with from/to, and no hint at what the report returns. Comparable to a mid-grade tool with partial coverage.

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 only 33% (site, to, and days are undocumented). The description compensates for kind by explaining 'bots' vs 'threats' beyond the bare enum values, but the date-window parameters (from/to/days interplay) remain unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific resource (bot traffic for a site) and clarifies the two data slices via kind. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_breakdown or get_visitors, but the resource is concrete enough to distinguish it.

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 kind enum semantics imply when to pick 'bots' vs 'threats', which is useful selection guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool over get_breakdown/get_stats, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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