umami_pageviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about default time window behavior, how 'days' interacts with 'start'/'end', timezone handling, or aggregation granularity—context that matters for a time-series query.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance covered under other dimensions.

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 values need not be described, but with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and only 'unit' documented, an agent cannot confidently supply time ranges, timezone, or the required website_id from the description alone. Significant gaps remain.

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% and there are 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only the 'unit' values, leaving website_id (required), days, start, end, and timezone entirely unexplained, and it never clarifies the precedence between 'days' and start/end.

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?

States a specific resource (pageviews and sessions) and the temporal dimension ('over time'), so an agent knows this is a time-series retrieval tool. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like umami_stats or umami_metrics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as umami_stats or umami_metrics. The second sentence about units is parameter detail, not usage guidance.

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