umami_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The one genuine behavioral addition is the ordering guarantee ('highest count first'), which is useful. Nothing is said about the time window (how `days` interacts with `start`/`end`), how `search` filters, or pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the ordering behavior is front-loaded before the long enumeration. The type list is dense but each token is load-bearing as an allowed value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. However, for an 8-parameter analytics query the description never states the date-range semantics (default 7 days vs explicit start/end precedence) or what `search` does, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It does the single most valuable thing: enumerates the allowed `type` values, which the schema leaves as a bare string with a 'path' default. The remaining parameters (days, limit, offset, search, start, end, website_id) are undocumented but largely self-describing by name.

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 conveys that results are a ranked breakdown of some metric dimension, and the enumerated `type` values (top pages, referrer, country, browser, ...) strongly imply website analytics. But there is no verb and no mention of the resource being a website's metrics, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like umami_stats or umami_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the type list that this is the tool for per-dimension breakdowns rather than aggregate stats, and must guess how umami_stats differs.

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