get_total_visitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., is it a single number, a structured object?). For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get total visitors'). Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't address key contextual elements: what format the result returns, whether authentication is needed, any rate limits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool in an analytics context, more operational context would be helpful.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (start_date and end_date) with format patterns. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context like date range constraints or timezone handling.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('total visitors'), and specifies the data source ('from Clicky analytics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on total visitor counts rather than domain-specific, page-level, or source-level metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_domain_visitors' which might also provide visitor counts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_domain_visitors' or 'get_traffic_sources'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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