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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, open-world GET. The description adds the endpoint path and the metric categories returned, which is useful, but says nothing about whether stats are date-bounded, aggregated, or empty for listings without a site.

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 tight sentence that front-loads what the tool returns, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler, though the endpoint restatement is somewhat redundant with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — it names visits and views but not the response shape, granularity, or time window. For a simple single-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents listing_id including its UUID pattern. The description hints at the id via '{id}' in the endpoint but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource — viewing statistics of a listing's property website — and adds the concrete metrics (visits, views) plus the underlying endpoint. It is distinguishable from aryeo_get_listing, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's clear you call this to get website stats for one listing, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over aryeo_get_listing or aryeo_list_listings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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