get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content (visitors, visits, etc.) and mentions previous period and deltas, but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output fields with zero waste. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return format by listing metrics, but does not specify types or exactly how previous period and deltas are structured. For a tool with 6 parameters, more completeness would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only mentions the window concept (start/end) implicitly. The schema itself already documents each parameter clearly.

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 that the tool returns summary stats (visitors, visits, pageviews, bounces, totaltime) for a website over a window, including previous period values and deltas. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_websites or get_event_data, though not explicitly comparing to get_metrics or get_pageviews.

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 implies usage for obtaining high-level stats over a time window, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_metrics or cohort_report. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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