openpanel_get_top_referrers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral disclosure is the optional project_id environment fallback. Missing: read/write safety confirmation, rate limits, pagination behavior, referrer classification logic, and return format details.

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 efficient sentences with action front-loaded. Information density is high despite the '[UNIFIED]' tag being non-functional metadata.

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?

Inadequate for a 4-parameter analytics tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation. Critical gaps remain around date_range formats (ISO dates? relative strings?), site identifier conventions, and result set expectations.

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 has 0% description coverage for all 4 parameters. Description only partially explains project_id semantics (environment fallback). Fails to document: site format (domain vs URL), date_range syntax options (only default '30d' visible in schema), or limit constraints.

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 specific action 'Get' and resource 'top traffic sources/referrers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like openpanel_get_top_pages. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation noise but doesn't obscure clarity.

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?

Includes concrete usage note that 'project_id is optional if configured in environment', helping agents know when the parameter can be omitted. However, lacks guidance on when to choose this over other analytics tools or expected input formats.

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