Get HitKeep Ecommerce Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read' aligns well. The description adds context about what data sections are included but does not disclose potential behavioral details such as default date range behavior, pagination, or how filters interact with breakdowns. Given the strong annotations, a mid score is appropriate; no contradiction exists.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action ('Read ecommerce summary...') and packs in the key data categories without waste. It earns its place by adding specificity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema (not shown) and full parameter documentation, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on how the various breakdowns relate to parameters like item_id/item_name or how filters apply across sections, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent selecting the tool.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description's mention of 'summary, top products, source stats, and aggregate city, provider, and ASN breakdowns' matches several filter types (city, provider, asn) and adds domain context, but it does not add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema describes. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Read' and a clear resource: ecommerce analytics for one site. It enumerates the main data sections (summary, top products, source stats, city/provider/ASN breakdowns), which helps distinguish it from sibling analytics tools like hitkeep_get_site_overview or hitkeep_get_event_breakdown, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for non-ecommerce analytics.

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 a read-only analytics use case but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hitkeep_get_site_overview or hitkeep_get_event_breakdown. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the title and the content list.

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