Get My Page Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The valuable addition is 'How far back history goes depends on your school' — a real availability/retention caveat an agent cannot get from annotations — plus the explicit returned field list, which substitutes for the missing 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, core capability front-loaded, no filler. 'Read-only' is the one sentence that does not earn its place since the annotations already state it, which keeps this from a 5.

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 no output schema, naming the returned fields (URL, time, course) is exactly the right compensation, and the history-depth caveat sets expectations. Minor gaps remain — result ordering and whether limit truncates newest or oldest entries — but nothing that would cause a misexecution.

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 limit, start_time and end_time are already documented, including the 'defaults to now' behavior for end_time. The description only echoes 'in a time range' and adds no ordering, timezone, or paging semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus the fields returned ('List your own Canvas page views (URL, time and course)'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from course-scoped siblings via 'your own', but never names an alternative such as get_activity_stream or get_my_activity_analytics, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Useful for showing you opened material on a given date' gives one concrete use case, which is better than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from several overlapping activity tools in the sibling list, so selection still requires guesswork.

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