get_entry_exit_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation (getting data), lists filter options, and implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, which would strengthen transparency.

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: the first defines the core function, the second adds utility and filter context. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no extraneous words.

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?

While the purpose and filters are clear, the description omits details about return format (e.g., field names, whether counts are provided). Given no output schema, explaining the response structure would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds aggregate context by listing filter categories (country, browser, os, etc.) but does not enhance individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 gets entry and exit pages, defining each as where sessions start and end. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pages or get_traffic_sources by focusing on the specific entry/exit dimension.

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 implies use cases (identifying effective landing pages and high-exit pages) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_pages or get_funnel. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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