Get Visitors by Browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but does not mention authentication, pagination, output format, aggregation behavior, or any limitations. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but no safety or operational details are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and examples, earning its place without verbosity.

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 has 23 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not describe the return value structure, how filters interact, or any default behavior, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema and make assumptions about the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions the browser breakdown. The 'browser' filter is already documented in the schema, and the description does not clarify any additional parameter usage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'visitor counts and revenue' broken down by 'web browser', with concrete examples (Chrome, Safari, Firefox). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pages or get_referrers, which focus on different dimensions.

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 implies the tool is for browser-specific analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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