get_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral transparency. It explains the output structure and the anomaly detection logic, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or any potential side effects, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by explanatory details and parameter descriptions. It is efficient, though the explanation of anomaly types could be considered extraneous for the tool's core function.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output structure, and parameter details comprehensively. It could be improved with usage guidelines relative to siblings, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema only provides parameter names and types. The description adds constraints (1-200 range for limit), default values, and functional meaning for unacknowledged_only. This compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 purpose: retrieving detected anomalies for the site. It further elaborates on the nature of anomalies (deviations from 7-day rolling average) and lists types, which helps differentiate from sibling tools focused on funnels, sessions, and stats.

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 context about what anomalies are and the data they include, which implies usage for monitoring anomalies. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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