Get Visitors by Region

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions returned metrics (visitor counts/revenue) but fails to disclose ordering, pagination, default time range, revenue assumptions, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies).

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. While concise, it omits practical context that could be included without bloat (e.g., default time frame), so it's efficient but not especially rich.

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?

With 23 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't describe the response format, default behavior, or how filters interplay, making it hard to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 covers 100% of 23 parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter meaning except the general 'region/state' context, which loosely aligns with the 'region' parameter; it does not clarify how 'state' maps to schema fields.

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 states 'Get visitor counts and revenue broken down by region/state' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_countries/get_cities through the 'region/state' dimension, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose get_regions over related geo-tools such as get_countries or get_cities, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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