Get Item Visits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns visit statistics and that last_week=true changes the time window to 7 days instead of 24h. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether the tool is read-only, or any rate-limit/auth behavior. The time-window behavior is useful but the description is thin on other behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place. The examples are slightly redundant with the schema's last_week description, but they add practical usage context without bloat.

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?

The tool has a nested input object, an output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the main use case and the last_week toggle, but it doesn't mention the account/site_id selection behavior or any prerequisites (e.g., authenticated accounts). Given the output schema exists, return values don't need explanation, but the description could be more complete about which account/site context applies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description's examples clarify the item_id parameter ('MLA1234567890') and the last_week parameter ('last week's visits' → last_week=true). However, it doesn't explain account or site_id semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are actually quite detailed. The description adds marginal value for the two main parameters but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage signal.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get visit statistics for a MercadoLibre listing.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings, but the sibling list contains no other visit-statistics tool, so the purpose is unambiguous enough.

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 two concrete usage examples that illustrate when to use the tool ('How many views does MLA1234567890 have?') and how to select the last_week option. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples give clear context for typical use cases.

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