get_realtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the 30-minute recency window, which is meaningful behavioral context, but says nothing about refresh cadence, caching, or sample-size caveats that often matter for real-time endpoints.

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 fragment sentence that front-loads the key scope ('Live activity') and lists the payload in order. Nothing is wasted, though as a fragment it reads more like a label than a full instruction.

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 an output schema present, the return shape needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the remaining essentials: purpose and time window. The only real gap is sibling differentiation, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness one.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering options are available, matching the empty schema.

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 the resource (live activity) and the concrete measures returned (visitors, pageviews, top pages), so an agent immediately understands this reports current real-time traffic. It is clearly distinct from analytics siblings like query_metrics or goal_report, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_metrics, query_metrics, or breakdown, which all touch similar traffic data. The 30-minute window is stated as a fact rather than as a usage condition, so the agent must infer applicability on its own.

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