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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the API key requirement, ownership constraint, and exact return fields (view count, last viewed time, 30-day breakdown). It omits error behavior, rate limits, and whether the page_id must belong to the authenticated user.

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 waste, and front-loaded with the value proposition before the prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently names the returned metrics and the auth prerequisite. It could specify the page_id source or access failure behavior, but is otherwise complete.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, though format uuid is present in the schema. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the page must be owned, but does not explain the page_id format or where to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ("View") and names the exact metrics returned, clearly distinguishing this stats-fetching tool from siblings like list_pages or update_page. It also scopes the resource with "for a page you own."

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?

It implies usage through the ownership constraint and API key requirement, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for checking page performance rather than listing or mutating pages.

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