get_query_traffic_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'traffic statistics' and 'over time,' but doesn't specify what data is returned, how it's formatted, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get traffic statistics for queries over time.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly 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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, leaving room for improvement in guiding effective tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'site_url', 'query', and 'period' have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any semantic details about these parameters, such as what 'site_url' should include, how 'query' is interpreted, or what values 'period' accepts (e.g., '30d' as default). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get traffic statistics for queries over time.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('traffic statistics'), and scope ('for queries over time'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get_query_stats' and 'get_query_page_stats' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or application. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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