get_pageviews

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 retrieving data but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., time-series structure). For a tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get time-series pageview and session data for a website') and adds a key detail ('bucketed by the chosen time unit'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what the time-series data looks like), behavioral aspects like pagination or limits, or how filters interact. For a data retrieval tool with many optional filters, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'bucketed by the chosen time unit', which relates to the 'unit' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate significantly.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('time-series pageview and session data for a website'), specifying what data is retrieved. It also mentions bucketing by time unit, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_metrics' or 'get_stats', which might also retrieve analytics data, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_active', 'get_metrics', 'get_stats', or 'get_websites'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid website ID, or any exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). This absence of comparative or contextual advice leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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