Get Page Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the Cloud-only Analytics API dependency, a hard constraint that would otherwise cause confusing failures. It stops short of describing what the statistics contain (time window, granularity), though the output schema presumably covers the return shape.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the purpose comes first and the environment constraint follows as a clearly separated note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description only needs to carry the environment caveat, which it does. The one remaining gap is the semantics of the returned metric (over what period views are counted), which an agent may need to interpret results.

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% and both parameters (page_id with a URL example, include_title with a default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as supported ID formats or the cost of include_title, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get view statistics for a Confluence page"), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling analytics/read tools like confluence_get_page or confluence_get_page_history. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the difference from the resource noun alone.

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 note gives a clear exclusion condition — only Confluence Cloud, not Server/Data Center — which is a genuine when-not-to-use rule that no sibling tool covers. What's missing is positive guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as confluence_get_page_history or confluence_get_comments.

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