get_timeseries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only gives minimal information about the output format (series of points) and granularity. It omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and use cases in the second. No wasted words, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on return value structure, prerequisites, and safe usage. It covers the main use case but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 fully documents each parameter. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, just mentioning granularities that match the interval enum. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade or enhance parameter understanding.

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 retrieves traffic over time as a series of points with granularities per hour, day, week, or month. It specifies use cases for trends and charts, differentiating it from siblings like get_breakdown (dimension breakdown) and compare_periods (comparison) by emphasizing time-series output.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Use for trends, charts, and 'how did traffic change over the last N days''. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as compare_periods, leaving some ambiguity.

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