Page views per day

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds ordering (newest first) and pins the metric definition, which prevents misreading 'page view' as user sessions. It does not mention result-set shape or paging beyond what the schema's page/size docs imply.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first defines the resource and its ordering, the second gives the actionable use case. Front-loaded with the core meaning before the analytical hint.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (daily counts, newest first) and how to use it with a sibling. The only gap is response envelope/pagination shape, which an agent must infer from the schema's paging hint.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented with defaults, ranges, and formats. The description contributes no additional parameter guidance (e.g. how startDate/endDate interact with daily bucketing), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and granularity ('Daily page view counts'), defines the metric parenthetically ('times the TrackJS agent loaded'), and gives the backing endpoint (GET /hits/daily) plus sort order. An agent can distinguish it from page_views_by_hour on granularity and from errors_* on metric without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the analytical use case: combine with errors_by_day to compute an error rate and separate regressions from traffic changes. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. 'use page_views_by_hour when hourly resolution is needed'.

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