Get Traffic Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing defaults (date range, timezone), the AND-combination of filters, the 'single row' result shape, and the requirement for websiteId/domain with a workspace token. No contradiction with annotations; a small gap is that pagination behavior is only implied via schema, not described here.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, then covers usage alternatives and a key example in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 28 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, defaults, filter semantics, alternatives, and auth requirement. It doesn't explicitly discuss pagination or response structure, but those are covered by the output schema and parameter descriptions. Overall, an agent has enough to use 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%, so all 28 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The description adds some interpretive value (filters narrow the whole result, default date/timezone) but largely reiterates what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get headline totals') and resource ('one website over a date range'), lists the exact metrics returned, and explicitly names alternatives (get_timeseries, get_* breakdown tools) to distinguish itself. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs from siblings.

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: 'Use get_timeseries for the trend over time and a get_* breakdown tool for the split by page, source, or geography.' It also illustrates a filter combination example and notes the auth requirement, leaving no ambiguity about when to pick this tool.

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