metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the 'expanded' parameter for engagement detail and the date range, but lacks disclosure on rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with empty results. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with examples. It is concise and every part contributes to understanding. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 that all parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage) and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavior. It is complete enough for a simple data retrieval tool, though it could mention default limit or date range behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'type' parameter with examples and explains 'expanded', but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for other parameters.

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 it returns top values for one dimension of website traffic over a date range, with examples like 'type=url' for top pages. It distinguishes the tool as a single-dimension ranking tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'events_series' or 'funnel_report'.

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 implies usage through examples but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'data_range' or 'realtime'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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