Page Titles

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('Returns title, pathname, visits, percentage, and avg time') absent an output schema. However, it does not disclose behavioral quirks such as pagination defaults, the date-range vs. pastMinutes alternative, or the UTC default timezone. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by usage context and return shape. Each sentence earns its place, though 'Useful for understanding content engagement' is the weakest of the three and only modestly informative. Overall appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 9-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description plus fully-covered schema handles most essentials. Gaps remain: return value units/formats are unspecified (percentage scale, avg time unit), no routing guidance among sibling reporting tools is given, and the date/pastMinutes exclusivity and timezone default are left to the schema. Adequate but not complete for an agent choosing among many analytics endpoints.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents defaults, formats, the filter dimension enum, and a worked filter example. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond naming the output fields, which does not compensate or extend the schema. A 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('page titles'), and enumerates the metrics returned (visit counts, percentages, average time on page) plus the exact return fields (title, pathname, visits, percentage, avg time). This is clear and distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping reporting tools like get_overview or get_metric, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Useful for understanding content engagement' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling analytics tools (get_overview, get_metric, get_session_locations, get_outbound_links). No alternatives are named and no exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when page-level engagement reporting is the right call.

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