Get a drop's view analytics

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing that counts are 'best-effort — captured fire-and-forget at the edge, so treat them as an approximate signal, not exact human visits.' It also details plan-gated responses (feature_not_in_plan, views+truncated, byCountry/byReferer/daily), which is crucial behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then capability tiers, accuracy caveat, parameter prerequisite, and usage trigger. Every sentence contributes unique information, with no filler or restatement. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the usage scenario, plan-based return variations, accuracy limitations, and the prerequisite resolve step. With an output schema present, it does not need to list return fields, and it adequately handles error cases (feature_not_in_plan). Complete for a read-only 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 description covers the only parameter (drop_id) fully, including the id-only requirement and the resolve alternative. The description essentially repeats this, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Approximate view analytics for one drop, by its `drop_…` id.' It uses a specific verb ('get' from title, but more precisely 'read analytics') and resource ('view analytics for a drop'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying id-only usage and pointing to dropthis_resolve for URL/slug inputs.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks how many views / how much traffic a drop got.' It also tells the agent to call dropthis_resolve first for public URLs/slugs, and explains capability-based limitations (Free vs Keep vs Pro+) that affect when the tool is usable.

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