Visitor Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, meaning the tool is read-only and not open-world. The description does not contradict these and adds only the breakdown dimensions; it does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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, focused sentence. It avoids fluff and repeats only useful context from the title. The breakdown levels are listed compactly, making it easy to parse.

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 rich schema and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently completes the tool's context for a straightforward reporting task. It lacks an explicit mention of what metrics are returned (e.g., number of visits, percentages), which is minor because the word 'visits' already conveys the core metric.

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%, with all six parameters individually described in the input schema. The description itself contributes no additional parameter insight, so it relies entirely on the structured schema, which is already clear.

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 role: 'visits broken down by country, continent, region, or city' – a specific resource (visitor locations) and breakdown dimensions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like matomo_visits_summary and matomo_pages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of when to choose another sibling. The parameter description for site_id suggests calling matomo_list_sites first, but the main description lacks direct guidance.

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