Get a document's readership

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only analytics operation. It adds context about the kind of insights returned (views, readers, drop-off) but does not go beyond annotations with additional behavioral details such as plan requirements (which are in the schema) or any side effects. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. The first sentence lists concrete deliverables, the second gives relatable examples. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for the tool's complexity. It explains what questions the tool answers and what data is provided. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or scope, but these are not critical for this read-only analytics 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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (file, includePages, includeProofing) including plan requirements. The description adds no parameter-specific meanings beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Find out') and resource ('who read an EveryPage document and how far they got'), then lists concrete metrics (views, unique readers, read time, completion rate, countries, drop-off, per-recipient attribution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like everypage_list_files or everypage_get_file, which are general file operations.

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 provides explicit use cases ('did they read my proposal?' / 'where do people stop reading?'), which indicates when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full 5.

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