get_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions that results are 'ranked rows', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how filters or order_by work, what the output format looks like, or how this tool differs from the sibling 'query' tool. Agents would need additional information to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it lists example dimensions (e.g., 'top pages') that are already in the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic details are provided for other parameters like filters or order_by.

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: breaking down stats by dimensions like top pages, traffic sources, etc., and returns ranked rows. It uses specific verb 'break down' and lists example dimensions, effectively distinguishing it from siblings that aggregate or provide time series.

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 provides explicit use cases like 'top pages yesterday' and 'where did traffic come from last week', which helps agents understand when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like get_timeseries or query, but the use cases imply the appropriate context.

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