Get Visitors by City

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'get' and clarifies output metrics ('visitor counts and revenue'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result grouping beyond 'by city,' or any rate/limit caveats. The description adds value by specifying the output, but gaps remain.

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 that conveys the core purpose without superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the resource and breakdown, 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?

For a tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It states the metrics returned but does not explain the response structure, that results are likely aggregated per city with count/revenue, or whether any filters are required. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps for complex usage.

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 documents all 23 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details, but it doesn't need to since the schema covers the filters, pagination, and date range fields adequately.

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 returns 'visitor counts and revenue broken down by city,' providing a specific verb, resource, and breakdown dimension. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_countries and get_region, which focus on different geographical breakdowns.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements or differs from similar get_* breakdown tools, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or use cases beyond the definition itself.

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