Get HitKeep QR Campaigns

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('aggregate', 'without redirect tokens or raw hit data'), but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or response shape beyond what the output schema already conveys.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key limitation without any filler or redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 read-only list/analytics tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the metric categories and what is intentionally excluded, which is all the agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and each parameter already has a descriptive schema entry. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific action ('Read aggregate') with a clear resource ('QR campaign opens, pageviews, visitors') and explicitly states what it excludes ('without redirect tokens or raw hit data'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling analytics tools.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need aggregate QR campaign metrics rather than raw hit data or redirect tokens. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough for selection.

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