get_timeseries

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

With no annotations, the description steps up usefully: 'Get' implies a safe read, the token parameter documents the auth fallback to PLAUSIBLE_API_KEY, and the default values for date_range and interval are disclosed. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or how missing data is represented, but the core behavioral contract for a read-only query tool is present.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block where every line adds a value, default, or format. Nothing is padded, though the Args list is slightly redundant in restating parameter names that the schema already labels.

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?

A return schema exists, so the description needn't explain output shape, and all four parameters plus the auth mechanism are documented. The remaining gap is relational: it never clarifies how this differs from the aggregate/breakdown/realtime siblings an agent will also see.

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 no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: site_id is shown with an example domain, date_range enumerates all six relative forms plus the absolute 'YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' pattern, and interval explains what 'date' vs 'month' actually aggregate. This is meaning the schema alone cannot deliver.

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 and resource ('Get historical timeseries trendlines') plus the concrete metrics returned (visitors, pageviews) and the intended use (plotting charts). It is clearly distinct from get_aggregate_stats or get_breakdown by virtue of being a time-bucketed series, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'for plotting charts' implies usage (when you need a trend over time rather than a single total), but the description never states when not to use it or points to alternatives like get_aggregate_stats for totals or get_realtime_visitors for live data. The distinction is inferable but not spelled out.

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