recent_visits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real behavioral value: newest-first ordering, the daily-rotating `visitor` code and its limitation, and that no IPs or user agents are stored. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or result-format notes.

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 with the core behavior front-loaded ahead of the caveats. The second sentence is slightly sprawling with two separate concerns (visitor code, IP storage), but no sentence is wasted.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the privacy notes on visitor/IP meaningfully aid interpretation of results. However, with 30% parameter coverage and no description of the return structure beyond the visitor nuance, gaps remain that an agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 only 30% (type, limit, range documented), so the description must compensate. It enumerates the filterable dimensions (time, page, source, country, browser, OS, event properties), which maps several params to concepts, but adds no format or syntax detail such as what 'time' accepts or how referrer/event interact.

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 resource and ordering: 'most recent individual visits (newest first)'. Referencing that it matches 'the same filters as query_visits' implies a row-level listing counterpart to a presumably aggregated sibling, but the distinction between the two tools is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Naming query_visits as a filter-reference implies a companion relationship, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer that this returns raw rows while siblings like top_pages/get_overview return aggregates.

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