get_referrers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core read operation and the ability to filter by referrer type and date range, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any limitations. It is not contradictory but lacks depth.

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 two sentences with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes: it names the tool, the data source, the referrer types, and a key capability. No redundant or filler wording.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level result ('Shows where traffic is coming from') and a key feature (date ranges), but it does not explain the return structure or mention filtering options like domain or section. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about date ranges being useful for comparison analysis, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for any of the 9 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 fetches referrer data and specifies the types ('social', 'search', 'other', 'internal'), which distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools focused on posts, authors, tags, shares, or content search. The verb 'get' and resource 'referrer data' are specific and unambiguous.

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 offers a use case ('Supports specific date ranges for comparison analysis') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is implied rather than explicit, and there is no comparison with sibling tools like get_analytics_posts or get_shares.

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