Get Traffic By Country Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the useful constraint that zone_id and zone_name are mutually exclusive, but says nothing about what happens if both are supplied, whether results are paginated, or how the breakdown is ordered.

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 short sentences, purpose stated first, constraint second. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully covers the five optional parameters. Only the missing sibling routing and failure behavior for conflicting zone identifiers keep it below a 5 for a five-parameter analytics tool.

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 limit/since/until/zone_id/zone_name are all documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description adds one genuinely non-derivable rule — "provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both" — since the schema marks both as nullable and would permit supplying both.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Get traffic breakdown by country"), which is clearly distinct from analytics siblings like get_top_pages_tool, get_security_events_tool, and get_zone_analytics_tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the resource name plus the mutual-exclusion constraint on zone identifiers. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_zone_analytics_tool or get_top_pages_tool, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., that a zone must exist or that the caller needs analytics permission).

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