get_site_traffic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the response structure (overview, top pages, top referrers), filter semantics (AND-joined), and date range options, without contradicting annotations.

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 structured in three concise paragraphs, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds information, with no fluff, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: filter structure, available dimensions and operators, date range options, and sourcing site_id via list_sites. It omits potential pagination or limits but is otherwise sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter details but adds minimal additional semantic value such as a brief filter example and note about defaults varying, which is helpful but not essential.

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 'Traffic metrics for a single site (overview + top pages + top referrers)', which identifies the tool's specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_pages and get_top_referrers that return only a subset of this data.

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 use for a comprehensive traffic overview of a single site with filters and custom date ranges, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_breakdown or get_time_series, and does not mention when not to use it.

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