Get a document's readership

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

With readOnlyHint=true already disclosed in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the variety of analytics returned (e.g., 'where readers dropped off', 'per-recipient attribution'), which goes beyond a simple 'read-only' declaration. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first lists key data points, the second gives relatable question examples. Every phrase contributes value, with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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?

The tool has an output schema, annotations for safety, and schema descriptions for parameters. The description covers purpose, use cases, and output scope, leaving no significant gap for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% because both parameters ('file' and 'includePages') have descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific action ('Find out who read') tied to a clear resource ('an EveryPage document') and enumerates distinctive outputs: views, unique readers, read time, completion rate, countries, drop-off, and per-recipient attribution. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_file or list_events, which handle metadata or event logs.

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?

The description explicitly frames use cases with 'Use this to answer questions like...', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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