Get Website Stats Time Range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond these, such as the output structure (stats_range[] with date, result_type, estimated_traffic, and optional competitors), the maximum of 10 competitors, and the response format options. No contradictions.

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 concise, with clear sections for Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence is necessary. No fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (7 parameters, optional output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, each parameter's role (with additional context for competitors), the return structure, and typical use cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still provides a useful summary.

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 high (86%), but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that competitors use the same 'type' as the primary target, and it explains the output structure. The schema already documents most parameters well, so the description provides incremental value without redundancy.

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 it provides 'Historical traffic time series (daily/weekly/monthly) for a target, with optional competitor comparison.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('time range'), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_website_stats' (likely single-point) and others.

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 explicitly states 'Use for trend analysis, year-over-year charts, and competitor benchmarking.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context implies it's for time-range data, distinguishing it from single-point alternatives. No explicit alternative tools are named, but the sibling list is available.

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