Get Top Referrers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool returns top referrers with visitor count and revenue, which gives some insight into the output. However, it does not mention sorting behavior, pagination, or any read-only guarantees, though the verb 'get' implies a safe operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action ('Get the top traffic referrers') in the first few words. The second sentence elaborates on the output fields, adding value without unnecessary verbosity. Two sentences are sufficient for this tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by listing the expected fields (referrer URL, visitor count, revenue). However, it does not clarify how filters interact, what 'top' means (e.g., sorting default), or whether a date range is required. For a tool with 23 optional parameters, this leaves some gaps.

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?

All 23 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each filter. The tool description adds context by clarifying that the result includes metrics like visitor count and revenue, but it does not explain any parameter-specific behavior beyond what is in the schema.

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: 'Get the top traffic referrers (sources linking to the website).' It also specifies the key output fields (referrer URL, visitor count, revenue), which distinguishes it from related analytics tools like get_pages or get_browsers.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate for referrer traffic analysis based on the name and title. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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