Get Page Views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly implies a read-only GA4 query and scopes it by date range, but adds nothing beyond the input schema (which already documents start_date/end_date) and does not disclose defaults, aggregation behavior, or pagination. It is not misleading, but it is thin on behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the verb, resource, and scope efficiently, earning a top score for structure.

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 is low-complexity, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so return values need no description. The remaining gap is usage guidance relative to sibling report/metric tools, which is the only reason this is not a 5.

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%, and all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Get'), resource ('page view metrics'), and scope ('specific date range from Google Analytics 4'). It is not a tautology and the page-view focus distinguishes it from sibling metric tools like get_active_users or get_events, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings like run_report or get_events. The only contextual hint is the date-range scope, which does not count as usage direction. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing statements.

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