Get compact traffic stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the response is pre-summarised, contains an active visitor count, and limits pages/referrers to the top five rather than returning raw rows. This helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs in the key output characteristics without filler. Every phrase 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?

For a simple read-only stats tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description provides enough output shape detail—active visitors, top pages/referrers, pre-summarised nature—to let an agent invoke it correctly and interpret the result. The lack of an output schema is adequately compensated.

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%, with both projectId and days fully documented including defaults, min/max, and types. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies; it neither harms nor enhances parameter understanding.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Return' and names a precise resource: a small pre-summarised traffic overview with active visitor count and top five pages/referrers. It also contrasts itself with raw daily analytics rows, making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from the analytics-related siblings.

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 phrase 'instead of raw daily analytics rows' gives clear contextual guidance about when to reach for this tool: when a compact summary is desired rather than granular daily data. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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