List traffic sources

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the sorting rule ('sorted by views; page with next_cursor') and the exact return fields per source. It stops short of noting timezone/period-anchoring semantics, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core question the tool answers, then the returned payload and ordering. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields (source, category, views, unique visitors, free/paid subscribers) plus sort order and pagination. It omits how the period is anchored in time, which slightly limits interpretation of results.

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 documents limit, cursor, and the 7d/30d/90d/365d period enum with defaults, so the bar is baseline. The description only restates 'in a period' and confirms next_cursor paging without adding syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and dimension: where a publication's visitors came from, broken out by source with views/visitors/subscribers. That is clearly distinguishable from analytics siblings like get_post_traffic or get_audience_insights, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'in a period' plus the period enum; it never states when to choose this over get_post_traffic, get_daily_stats, or get_audience_insights. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer the comparison traffic-vs-audience split.

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