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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that this maps to POST /api/v2/query with dimensions=[property], clarifying it is a convenience wrapper over the raw query endpoint, but adds nothing about return shape or result limits beyond the schema's limit field.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and closed with the underlying API mapping. No filler, every clause 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 7-parameter read-only breakdown tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits routing guidance versus its many siblings, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the 'property' param with examples the schema itself already supplies, so 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 verb and resource — 'break metrics down by a single property (dimension)' — and gives concrete examples (visit:source, event:page). It implicitly contrasts with aggregate/timeseries by emphasizing 'a single property', but never names a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The word 'Convenience' hints it is a shorthand wrapper, but the description never says when to prefer it over plausible_aggregate, plausible_timeseries, or plausible_query_stats.

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