Get AI Traffic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the analytical dimensions returned (crawler breakdown, referred visits, landing pages), but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, pagination, or how the default 30-day window affects results. It adds context over the annotation but not rich behavioral detail.

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 that opens with the report type and then lists the key data categories. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration is somewhat dense and comma-heavy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the report contains (crawler purposes, top pages, referred visits, landing pages), which effectively communicates the return shape. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is largely complete; only the time-window interplay and freshness are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter (days) with full schema description coverage including default and max, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the time window or its defaults, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific resource (AI visibility report / get_ai_traffic) and enumerates its contents: crawler requests by purpose and crawler, most-read pages, AI-assistant referrals, and landing pages. No sibling tool covers AI traffic, so it is clearly distinguishable. It lacks a crisp leading verb but the scope is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'AI visibility report' implies an analytics use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or the data window. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right call versus get_maintenance_report, get_indexnow_status, or get_seo_settings.

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