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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only nature. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of pagination, data limits, or how the 'limit' parameter behaves. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no output schema. It earns no credit for wasted words, but it also doesn't earn credit for being appropriately sized given the complexity.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no mention of return format or parameter meanings, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to inspect the schema and still might not know how to construct a valid request (e.g., date range vs. days, required fields).

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It only hints at 'Top-N' which likely maps to the 'limit' parameter, and 'by one dimension' which maps to the enum. This is thin compensation for a tool with a complex schema.

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 the tool produces a 'Top-N breakdown' by a dimension, which clearly indicates a ranked list for a site. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_timeseries (trend over time) or get_stats (aggregate metrics), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_stats or get_timeseries. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema alone.

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