Get Traffic by Hostname

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: response rows contain 'value, visitors, revenue, and percentage with pagination.total,' defaults for limit (100, max 1000) and dates (last 30 days), that 'all filter_* arguments apply,' and the authentication requirement (websiteId or domain with workspace token). This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate response structure and prerequisites.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and ranking, then quickly covers usage differentiation, response contents, defaults, and auth. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 27 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core function, when to use vs alternatives, response shape, pagination, defaults, filter applicability, and authentication requirements. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone, with the schema handling parameter-level details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value beyond the schema: it clarifies that all filter_* arguments apply (relevant given the large filter set), reiterates the auth context for websiteId/domain, and mentions defaults that are also in the schema. It doesn't introduce new parameter semantics not in the schema, but the 'all filter_* arguments apply' note is a useful consolidation. The extra context about authentication requirements and the response fields elevates it slightly above baseline.

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 the tool's action: 'Get visitors grouped by hostname, ranked by visitors descending, for a date range.' It names the resource and the ranking, and explicitly contrasts with sibling get_pages ('Use get_pages for paths within a host'), making it easy to distinguish from other get_* tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Useful when one website tracks several domains or subdomains; a single-domain site returns one row.' It names the alternative tool (get_pages) and explains how to pass filter_hostname to other tools to scope by hostname, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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