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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral nuance beyond annotations: almost every figure is an all-time counter, not windowed, and the agent should say so when reporting — a subtle trait that prevents misreporting. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveats. The parenthetical 'say so when reporting numbers' is arguably dispensable but carries real reporting guidance, so it earns its place. Slightly dense but no wasted padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return structure; instead it focuses on the two things an agent must know — the lifetime-vs-windowed caveat and the siteId omission rule. For a two-parameter read tool with a full output schema, nothing material is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that siteId can be omitted when there is a single site, and clarifies that attributionDays governs the 'configurable recent window' that applies only to attribution rows. It doesn't restate the default (30) or maximum (90) that the schema already defines, but the added semantic meaning is substantial.

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 names the specific resource (a bio page / mini site) and enumerates the exact metrics returned — views, clicks, best-performing links, source/device/country, AI-crawler reads, and post-to-click attribution. This is clearly distinct from sibling analytics tools like get_channel_analytics or get_post_metrics. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 gives actionable usage context: 'Omit siteId when the team has exactly one site' and warns that attribution is windowed while other figures are lifetime. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_channel_analytics, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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