site_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that 'secret acts as the key' (an auth requirement) and that the tool is 'free,' but says nothing about rate limits, what a missing/invalid secret does, or the shape of the response for a read operation.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the parenthetical '(free)' is duplicated pointlessly and the auth/scope notes are crammed into awkward nesting rather than structured order.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition does far too little. An agent is left guessing what siteId accepts, what days controls, and what the metrics response contains.

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 0%, so the schema documents none of the three parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining that 'secret' is the key, but leaves 'siteId' (what a 'bought analytics site' identifier is) and 'days' (the lookback window, bounded 1-90) entirely unaddressed.

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 specific return values (pageviews, visitors, visits, bounces, top pages) and scopes them to a 'bought analytics site,' so an agent knows it is an analytics-metrics reader rather than a crawl/audit tool. It is dimly distinguished from siblings like site_audit or traffic_estimate, but the phrase 'bought analytics site' is idiosyncratic and unexplained.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite many adjacent siblings (traffic_estimate, site_audit, site, site_renew). The only implicit signal is that the site must be a 'bought' analytics site, which the agent cannot resolve on its own.

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