get_contact_page_visits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 20-item cap, newest-first ordering, the important limitation that only visits while the livechat widget was loaded are counted, and the required `conversations:read` permission. It omits error/empty behavior and raw endpoint details beyond the path.

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 return behavior is front-loaded in the first real sentence, with permission and endpoint metadata following. The leading line 'Get Contact Page Visits' duplicates the tool name and the Tags line is minor clutter, but the body is tight.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how much, in what order, and under what data-collection condition, plus the auth requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only empty-result and error semantics are unaddressed.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that uuid is the conversation UUID path parameter. The description's phrase 'the conversation's contact' only loosely reinforces that the UUID scopes to a conversation, adding little beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the last 20 website pages the conversation's contact visited') and adds scope detail (newest first, widget-loaded only). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_contact or get_conversation, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 usage by framing the data as tied to a livechat widget and requires a specific permission, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions make it inapplicable (e.g., contacts without widget history). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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