Get Timeseries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the tool's safety and repeatability. The description adds the scope of 'for a site or specific page' and the purpose of spotting trends, which is contextually useful but does not disclose additional behavioral details like aggregation behavior, output formatting, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the core profile, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a specific intended use case. There is zero waste; each sentence earns its place. It is concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (7 parameters) but fully documented schema and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns (metrics over time) and a typical use case. No critical missing information prevents an agent from invoking it correctly, though it could mention that it can be filtered by page or custom properties, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for this 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 coverage is 100% — every parameter (site_id, date_range, goals, page, metrics, granularity, property_filters) is described in the input schema with types, defaults, and examples. The description adds no extra parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3. It neither clarifies nor complicates the 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 the tool's function: 'Get traffic and conversion metrics over time for a site or specific page.' It identifies the resource (metrics) and the temporal context, making its purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_breakdown or compare_periods, though the 'over time' phrasing implies a time-series focus. This is clear but not fully differentiated from 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?

The description provides a concrete use case: 'Use to spot trends and changes around deploys.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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