Get ContentSite Hits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get daily hits'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify critical details such as permissions required, rate limits, data format (e.g., JSON, CSV), timezone handling, or whether it returns aggregated or raw hits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get daily hits for a content site') with zero wasted words. It avoids redundancy with the name or title and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like data format or usage guidelines. While adequate for basic understanding, it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in operational knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'contentSiteId' documented as 'Content site ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 action ('Get daily hits') and resource ('for a content site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_content_site' or 'get_content_sites' by specifying the metric (hits) and timeframe (daily). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_content_site_logs', which might also involve hit data, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid content site ID), exclusions (e.g., not for aggregated or real-time data), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_content_site_logs' that might offer similar functionality. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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