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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it names the returned row fields and shares ('rows with visitors, views, sessions, bounces and relative shares') and maps to the underlying GET endpoints, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics, then the type variants, then filtering, then the endpoint mapping. Nothing is padded, though the trailing endpoint list is auxiliary for an agent that will call the tool by 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?

For a 35-parameter analytics query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the type distinction, filter behavior, and endpoint mapping. Pagination guidance is left to the schema's limit/offset descriptions, which is reasonable but a small 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across 35 parameters, so the schema already documents every filter, enum, and the !/~/^ prefix modifiers. The description only restates type semantics and echoes a couple of filter examples, adding marginal value beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (top pages) plus the exact metric set it returns, and disambiguates the type variant by naming entry vs exit pages. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like pirsch_list_event_pages or pirsch_list_hostnames from the description alone.

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?

Explains the type parameter's semantics (entry = landing pages, exit = exit pages) and shows how filters narrow results with concrete examples (country=de, path=~blog). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over siblings like pirsch_list_filter_values or pirsch_get_overview, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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