Get Visitors by Operating System

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic output (visitor counts and revenue) but omits important behaviors such as how filters interact, date range handling, pagination, or whether revenue is aggregated. This is a read operation, but minimal behavioral context is provided beyond the one-line summary.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the resource ('visitor counts and revenue'). It is concise, readable, and contains no superfluous 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?

Despite the tool having 23 optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal statement of purpose. It does not explain the available filtering dimensions, default time range, response structure, or any caveats. The description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation in a complex context.

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 all 23 parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does clarify the primary grouping dimension (OS). This matches the baseline of 3 for high 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 function: getting visitor counts and revenue grouped by operating system. It names specific OS examples, which removes ambiguity. This differentiates it from siblings that focus on other dimensions like browsers or devices.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools (e.g., get_browsers, get_devices). The description implies it's for OS-level breakdowns but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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