get_aggregate_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It signals a read operation and does disclose the auth model (token param or PLAUSIBLE_API_KEY env fallback) and the default 30d window, but says nothing about permissions/scopes, rate limits, or error behavior on an invalid site_id — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is tight and scannable, with no redundant prose. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose relative to the schema but each line carries real 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, defaults, and all four parameters adequately. The one missing piece is sibling routing guidance relative to get_breakdown, get_timeseries, and get_realtime_visitors.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it largely does: site_id has concrete domain examples, date_range enumerates all valid literal values plus the YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD custom form, metrics lists accepted metric names, and token explains the env-var fallback. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether arbitrary Plausible metric strings are accepted in 'metrics'.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate website performance totals') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, which implicitly separates it from get_breakdown and get_timeseries. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 word 'aggregate' plus the metric list implies this is the top-level summary tool versus get_breakdown (dimension splits) and get_timeseries (trends), but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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