Pages

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: URLs are returned flattened as full paths and sorted by visits. This goes beyond the annotation for report-specific behavior and avoids surprises.

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 comprises two sentences: the first front-loads the tool purpose and report list; the second covers output formatting. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes essential user information.

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 there is no output schema, the description still communicates the nature and shape of the returned data (page URLs/titles, entry/exit, downloads, outlinks, full paths, sorted by visits). It could go deeper into per-report row shapes, but the combination of schema descriptions and this context is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 describes 100% of parameters with defaults and enums. The description adds meaning by mapping report types to the output behavior (most visited URLs/titles, entry/exit pages, downloads, outlinks) and clarifying URL flattening and sort order, which improves parameter comprehension.

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 identifies the tool as returning page-level analytics reports and enumerates the specific report types (most visited URLs/titles, entry/exit pages, downloads, outbound links). It is distinct from siblings like matomo_visits_summary and matomo_referrers, though it lacks a strong imperative verb such as 'list' or 'get'.

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 says 'Page-level analytics reports' and lists what it covers, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like matomo_page_performance or matomo_visits_summary.

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