Site Event Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds output-structure context (time-bucketed counts by event type) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not exceptional.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The main output is stated first, followed by a concise purpose statement. The enumeration of event types is dense but directly relevant to tool selection and invokes no unnecessary detail.

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 analytics tool with a rich, fully documented schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of time-bucketed counts by event type is essential and adequately covers the return shape. Minor ambiguity about how filters apply to the breakdown is addressed by the filter parameter documentation.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., bucket granularity, filters example, timeZone default). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only summarizes the output categories. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('get'), a clear resource ('time-bucketed event counts'), and enumerates the breakdown types (pageviews, custom events, performance, etc.). This distinguishes it from generic event timeseries endpoints like rybbit_get_event_timeseries. The site-level scope is implied by the tool name and required siteId parameter.

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 includes a useful context line ('useful for understanding the volume and mix of tracking events over time'), which helps an agent infer when it might be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as rybbit_get_event_timeseries or rybbit_get_org_event_count, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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